If history teaches us anything, it's more likely that the US would intervene against Norway to privatize its oil market with the "help" of US companies. But being a quasi-EU country and NATO member that's still a very unlikely scenario.
I loved the show, and Russia was obviously a metaphor for the actual nation that invades for oil on a regular basis. There really are some things you can't say and get a TV show made. This is irony: speaking two messages to two audiences.
Of course, there's also an audience for unflattering caricature of Russia. Besides there is some leftover animosity from historical invasions. Also a Russian invasion looked more exotic on the screen. Our screens are already full of American culture.
ZOMG I had never heard of any of these events of the last several years! The news media has failed me by only hyping this kind of thing 23 hours a day! What good fortune that I've had this opportunity to learn from you! Now I will support all of our meaningless unnecessary wars, starting with Venezuela where I'm assured that there really is an actual "humanitarian crisis"!
Actually this wasn't a geopolitical point. It is simply a fact that Russian food, music, and other cultural indicators are less common on TV than American culture is. So, it makes for more interesting TV. That's all "exotic" meant.
> When America invades with the intent to steal a country, let me know.
Most of the USA outside of the founding states was stolen by invasion, including the overseas territories. (Though some of it was covered by purchases made possible by invasion, or under threat of invasion, or from people who claimed most of the covered territory despite not actuslly effectively controlling it while other people lived on it.)
1. Before the legal concept of a nation-state, all countries were formed via conflict. Every.single.one. What's your point?
2. Overseas territories are more complicated, most have semi or fully autonomous status, while others voted to maintain their formal status with the US. If any wanted full independence, they would be granted it. Ukraine voted to increase trade relations with the EU and was properly invaded and had partially annexed. How you can even begin to compare the two, I have no idea.
Why would the US annex a country if it's easier to install a US-friendly government and set up a number of large contracts for US companies? Overseas territories are a liability and the last thing you want is more citizens who might have their own ideas about how the country should be run.
0. That's the number of oil contracts US companies received in Iraq post invasion.
The US acts recklessly and causes much misery and death through its actions. It don't invade places with the intention of occupying and steal land/resources.
This is a good point. MIC pretends sometimes that they're trying to help out oil exploitation, but in fact they're only about turning blood and tax dollars into profit. Many of the people actually fighting as well as the morons who keep voting for the fighting don't understand this, however.
"When America invades with the intent to steal a country, let me know."
Because invading oil-rich countries, installing a puppet government, seeding chaos leading to deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is so much better than bloodlessly reuniting with a piece of your own territory stolen during the dissolution of the USSR.
> reuniting with a piece of your own territory stolen during the dissolution of the USSR.
LOL. The Soviet Union was an empire forged through invasion, occupation, and brutal repression. The Russians have as much right to Czechoslovakia as Nazi Germany did.
Your unapologetic defense one one of the greatest evils of the 20th century would be funny, if it wasn't disgusting.
Calm down there, fella. Crimea isn't the same thing as Slovakia and Czechia; they are separated by nearly 1000 miles. Crimea really was part of Russia from 1783 to 1954. Its various political associations since 1954 hardly constitute "one of the greatest evils of the 20th century".
Ex-Soviet states didn't choose a "political association" as you say, they were invaded and brutally occupied in an attempt to erase their existence.
Nazis get the proper context in 20th century history, the Soviet union sadly doesn't. If you were here defending Hitler's invasion of Poland i'd image the response would be different.
If you really intend to suggest that these two "invasions" are substantially the same, then you should introduce actual arguments to that effect, rather than whinging about the fact that no one simply agrees with your novel historical opinion. If this was merely a poorly chosen example intended to buttress a general hate-on for Russia, I would suggest you research more on the 'stans, since the overall area dwarfs that of USSR's European adventures. With all that area, we can be pretty sure that a Stalinist authoritarian state got up to all sorts of evil shit. (One issue might be that this wouldn't be well represented on Wikipedia, since it concentrates on white people history.)
"Specifically", USSR was a Stalinist authoritarian state. Is this controversial?
I merely encouraged GP to research the evil shit, because it might offer some sorely needed rhetorical support for his Russia animus. I don't care one way or the other about it. "Governments are evil; news at eleven!"
Do Texas, California, Hawai'i, Puerto Rico, and Guam fit in your "carefully" calibrated category? That's not even counting the American Indians who inhabited most of the rest of what became USA before Europeans got here. We held on to Philippines for a while, too. What point do you think you're making with this line of argument?
Ah we're going back before the concept of nation states, huh? That's a reach.
Well, in that case almost every country in the world needs to be re-partitioned and given back to indigenous populations, most of which are long since wiped out.
All to justify Russian invading Ukraine. What happened 2 years ago is the same as the carnal free-for-all that was pre-modern civil society. Well done, wasn't expecting that.
When you're just typing rather than thinking, you'll be surprised by lots of logical objections to your babbling. The 19th and 20th centuries are the late-modern period, not the pre-modern period. Most of the Russian Empire was accumulated during this period if not before. It would not be reasonable to rule 19C American actions out of bounds while condemning 19C Russian actions.
I never mentioned 19th century Russia. Invading to occupy, oppress, steal, and subjugate is 20th century Russia, no need to go back any further.
As I said before, justifying Russia acting like a medieval power in 2018 by citing American expansion in 1850 is just stupid. It's whataboutism but not even logical.
You might have thought you were being clever by blurring the distinction between Crimea and certain European nations, but everyone in this thread has seen through this. Crimea was part of Russian Empire from 1783. That's a long time ago.
You would have been fine if you just stopped with "Russia has invaded other nations". That's simply true. This "Russia invades more nations than USA" is obvious bullshit. Even the TV news admits that.
