kravietz 🦇 @kravietz@social.privacytools.io

@dump_stack

As you can see Dugin is pretty much a synonym for geopolitics in Russia :)

@thor @dump_stack

Just answer to the messages you categorically disagree :)

@dump_stack

> everyone who uses the term geopolitics is suddenly influenced by Dugin

In Russia - mostly yes. He was the main modern promoter of the concept, or its Russian version to be more precise, since early 90's.

Just like in Poland most people speaking of "geopolitics" almost nobody reads Ratzel or MacKinder, but people do read our local fool Jacek Bartosiak.

@dump_stack

Again, the concerns about Gazprom were most heated 10 years ago when it was selling hydrocarbons to each EU state separately at different prices and used their monopolistic position to force political goals. After EU energy directive and anti-monopoly investigation against Gazprom most countries have significantly diversified their supplies, thus weakening Gazprom's (and Kremlin's) leverage.

@dump_stack

> EU without NATO

100% agree here. In general, EU would be much better without US.

Unfortunately, this is unlikely as most EU member states don't give a f because they are not personally concerned by their safety from military point of view and rely on the umbrella provided by... NATO.

@dump_stack

I'm not saying (or thinking):

> EU is a threat to Russia

I said:

> EU is a threat to the existing status quo in the relations between Russia and individual member states

Which is a huge difference.

For me there's a substantial divide between "Russian status quo" meaning the current Kremlin party and their kleptocratic way of living, and the Russian people and their economic interests (and having many personal reasons to be concerned about the latter).

@dump_stack

As for media presence of Dugin:

https://ria.ru/20200914/konflikt-1577167607.html

Check the date of publication :)

@dump_stack

As for media presence of "geopolitics" in Russia:

https://ria.ru/20200902/kurily-1576616282.html

Check the date of publication :)

@dump_stack

> 1. Geopolitics is a very old term.

It is. Dugin relied on previous pseudo-scientific publications by German, British and American authors.

> 2. It does not used more in Russia than it used outside of Russia

Absolutely, Americans love this bullshit too.

> 3. It's clearly not so widely used in the mass media

Without data it's not a convincing argument :)

> no such big geopolitics-related community like r/geopolitics

Nobody in Russian politics reads Reddit :)

@dump_stack

And EU is being described as just as "anti-Russian" as NATO to be honest - it's EU that introduced sanctions on Russia, not NATO.

It's EU that disciplined Gazprom and disciplines member states to reduce their dependency on Gazprom.

So on all accounts you could say EU is a threat to the existing status quo in the relations between Russia and individual member states.

Except It's obviously no "threat" if Russia just wants to make business on fair grounds.

@dump_stack

Well, as I explained above - NATO did not "expand". Eastern European countries were begging to join NATO all 90's precisely out of fear of losing their newly gained sovereignty to yet another random burst of Russian neo-imperialism.

So NATO is "anti-Russian" only as much as Russia threatens with invasion on other countries --- which it does quite often, to be honest.

@dump_stack

You can hear the term "geopolitics" mentioned in *every* political debate in Russia, and in mass media, don't you? This is precisely where it came from. You just missed the peak of his popularity which was early 2000's.

@Wetrix

AfterShokz - they work by conducting through the cheek bone, which gives great sound quality but no more things falling out of your ears when moving ;)

@dump_stack

> the end of the cold war

This is precisely my argument: in 1991 everyone was thinking Russia will become a normal country, focused on its own well-being, rather than having a KGB putch, then killing 100k civilians in Chechnya, then having its top politicians call for restoration of the USSR.

If you ignore this neo-imperial sentiment of Russian politics in 90's, you will never understand the politics of Eastern Europe and will remain confined to the Duginian cliches.

@dump_stack

> I doubt it about solely verbal agreements

But it was. There was no document other than some stenograms from their talks, which is completely non-binding for any side. Baker was US secretary of state back then and he had no right to speak for NATO, which everyone on the Russian side perfectly realized.

@dump_stack

So EU didn't expand because of "values" but because it was economically attractive for both old EU and new EU countries.

If it wasn't attractive for the West, how would old EU convince their population to spend money to spend for some Eastern European savages like us?

If it wasn't attractive for Eastern Europe, how would we otherwise accept the increased cost of everything after joining EU?

@dump_stack

> Gorbachev was just fooled by the "west with the values"

This is 100% Dugin's argument -- and you're saying he didn't influence anyone! 😂

In politics there's no "values", it's a straw man used by both Russian and Western politicians. There are rules, but they only work as long as you cannot break them without too much cost inflicted.

@dump_stack

Quite to the contrary, Russian politics traditionally likes to have everything "on paper", even if they don't plan to stick to it.

If they don't have a formal reason to jail someone, they will create it (like Golunov), just to have it "on paper".

When Russia closes off oil or gas to intimidate their customers, it always comes up with some kind of formal reason ("technical issues"), just to have it "on paper".

@dump_stack

I'm aware of this but one politicians verbal declaration is not an "agreement".

An "agreement" is something like the Budapest Memorandum that is signed by a number of countries.

I think I've watched this Pozner's talk a while ago, if it's the one where he argues that Russians are used to such "verbal agreements" more than to formal ones and it's all about "cultural differences".

I call it bullshit. Russian politicians perfectly recognize formal agreements when it suits them.