It's funny how when the Soviet Union collapsed people thought Russia was heading towards democracy but not only did they elect the most authoritarian possible government but they also said "fuck this I want my empire back" almost immediately.
It was like the dumbest scenario possible lol.
That's wrong, during the 90's they had a choice between Yeltsin (he was considered a democrat and was supported by Bill Clinton) and communist party candidates. They chose Yeltsin twice. Despite Russia being completely miserable during Yeltsin's time in office (they had a default in 1998).
After the 2 terms were over, Yeltsin left the office as the constitution demanded. He recommended Putin as his replacement.
Initially Putin expressed very pro-democratic, pro-western views. However, as oil prices increased and quality of life in Russia skyrocketed, he used this to become increasingly authoritarian.
I would argue that Russians never elected the authoritarian candidate until a supposedly democratic one became authoritarian and built the entire regime around him.
*It's funny how when the Russian Empire collapsed people thought Russia was heading towards democracy but not only did they elect the most authoritarian possible government but they also said "fuck this I want my empire back" almost immediately.*
plus ça change ...
The thing is that the communists had lost in the Constituent Assembly in 1917, and when the convention was about to be held the bolcheviks dissolved it and there were no more elections where they would've lost anymore 😁
Germany and Russia weren't so different in the 1930s.
A decade later, Germany was forced to look deeply and reform itself. Russia never had this moment.
The Soviet Union may have collapsed, but no one in Russia stopped to wonder why. They retreated to the borders of the Russian Republic, but nothing otherwise changed.
The West also missed an opportunity to be more involved in Russia's reconstruction. Instead we left them to it, and expected things to turn out differently.
Don't even look into national bolshevism. What a massive cope show trying to merge imperialism, bolshevism, sovietism, Christianity, mysiticism and hard line exceptionalist nationalism into one buffet of "we've always been the bestest and greatest and others are absolute shit".
I’m not sure I can agree. They knew that he was the next Tsar to Muscovy and Khan to the provinces, with his own courtiers and so they just got on with daily live and furiously applied for Canadian citizenship
The fix to an oligarchy is a civil society that actually has the capacity and the desire to have a say in their future. All a leader like Putin does is concentrate the oligarchy and that leads to much worse outcomes, as we see today.
Ignoring all moral aspects, Putin seems adamant on leaving the country the way he found it, likely worse.
Well the country needs a decent stable ground to do such things. That wasnt the case in the 90s were oligarchs and criminals ruled the land. Life expectensy amongst men were lower than during WW2. People wanted better quality of life. Putin brought it to them. Hopefully someone better can do something better in the future but I really cant blame the people who supported his ryse to power. Most people would do the same under their circumstances
>And yes russia was alot more of an oligarchy back then than today
Serious question, what exactly changed? Russia was ruled by oligarchs in the 90s and they're run by oligarchs now too. Putin imprisoned or killed some of the old ones who supported Yeltsin, and gave power to new ones during his rule. Where's the change?
Yeltsin dident care to do much and let everything has it course which lead to oligarchs seizing power and since oligarchs main focus is earning money, and the poverty in Russia at that time (among other factors) lead to criminality going trough the roof which the oligarchs ofcourse also could use to their advantage. Political power became a tradable goods. Those oligarchs would also trade away natural goods abroad for use to increase their influence.
When Putin came to power he used some harch treatment to either get rid of those people or have them join his side with reduced influence. The state took power over the gas and parts of other natural resources and the oligarchs opposing it wasnt in for a good time. He also seized most of the power in the country which lead to it not being able to be bought the same way anymore. Now Putin has the power over Russia while in the 90s it was the oligarchs. The "oligarchs" today is more just like corrupt billionaries than people actually having significant power over the state.
The state taking control over the natural resources instead of it being sent abroad cheaply for oligarchs interests, heavily increased the wealth of the country. Even for normal people. That combined with dealing with the criminality significantly improved the living standard for the average Russian.
Russia really wasnt a good place in the 90s
Its not ‘funny’. They tried the democratic way but unfortunately they failed because the expectation was that “everything will be better now”. But only hardships followed, and then the leaders were perceived as weak and were replaced basically.
If the West wasnt so busy restoring their own cities and/or maybe the US could have stepped up more and guide Russia towards a good democracy, things could have been different.
Im not going to blame the West, including the US for not stepping up. The US already did plenty for Europe and Europe itself had its hands full with restoring their cities and lives. But maybe if Russia got some help, and if it would have accepted that help as well.. who knows
Fascist Nationalism is the only remaining viable option for regime security unfortunately, yes. As it is for China, who are slowly but steadily leaving the international order as we speak.
The Chinese Communist party will always choose whatever option that solidifies their monopoly on ruling. Historically the people were not rebelling due to weakness and such uprisings being squashed. Then as the ruling party opened up for trade and embraced the international order, the amount of calories exploded. Soon there after, prosperity rose. What always follows is a population that starts to desire to have a say in the political debate: they start demanding democracy. That will not be accepted by the communist party since it challenges their core interest: regime security. Absolut power.
With their sabre rattling about Taiwan, the west has quite quickly adopted a policy of gradually making itself anti-fragile, sanction proof, by shifting the only leverage China has over us: production capacity - nearshore and home.
My assessment is that we are witnessing the peak if not already the start of the decline of China. And the only way for the ruling class to shift the blame away from themselves is to embrace nationalism. Making it about the survival of the ethnic group Han Chinese. Alas: Fascism.
Elections are a necessary but insufficient to preserve democracy.
Real democracy requires participation (beyond merely voting) and a powerful honest press, transparent government and independent and fair judicial system.
> What always follows is a population that starts to desire to have a say in the political debate: they start demanding democracy.
Total nonsense as is most of what you're saying. There are many totalitarian countries around the world without a significant movement for democracy. Many people are fine with being ruled over by a non-democratic system and many others are indoctrinated into it.
Just as the Chinese have been for decades. But that is dependent on one of who things: a) that they feel that things are getting better for them, as the Chinese have, or b) if things are not getting better, that they blame an "enemy",
China will soon be out of option a, enter option b...
China is playing everyone. In a few decades, many countries around the world will be turned into semi-vassal states of china through debt, and buying companies and those countries' infrastructure (which they don't allow other countries to do in China). In Russia, Chinese companies have taken over the financial industry and other important parts of the economy left by western companies. Russia will be completely dependent on China and they'll stripmine that country. They're positioning themselves for world dominance if anything. They'll replace the US as hegemon. It's probably not really popular here to say that but that is what it looks like.
On the first part I agree - the Belt and Road initiative is basically a debt-trap diplomacy scheme.
On "They'll replace the US as hegemon" is where I do not. May the best man win!
Replacing the US as hegemon is mainly because they keep electing incompetent corrupt leaders. And both the right and left wing of the US seems to get more isolationist. They'll leave all their allies to fend for themselves which means a lot of them will either be completely overrun by one of their autocratic neighbors since they are too small to defend themselves (like taiwan and baltic states) or fall under their influence (belt road, japan, south korea, eastern europe, maybe even australia). When that happens, US is not the world hegemon anymore.
I think we can agree that the only way the US can be challenged as the world's greatest superpower is if she so chooses herself. China can not challenge the current world order - but the US can unilaterally chose to leave the world stage and become isolationistic. America First might be the shape of thing to come, on that I agree. And if she chooses to no longer enable the global maritime order then we know that America has chosen to focus inwards.
Huh. Interesting. Thanks! Sorry for doubting you. It just did not seem like they would do - russia is quite famous for should we say their excellent "[Crowd Control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag)" measures.
Ussr was a fascist totalitarian regime guilty of war crimes, genocide and many crimes against humanity.
How are you, being from Ukraine, no less, saying anything about positive appeal of ussr?
I guess u/lazyubertoad tried to say that USSR (totalitarian, anti-human, genocidal and simply ugly) at least continiusly made all these "peace for all" and "everyone will be happy under communism" statements. Yes, it's a lie, but still they TRIED to look nice. And Russia doesn't even try.
Fair enough, but then we do have North Korea that is making all the same claims and even calls itself democratic - I don’t see them getting much appeal?
North Korea doesn't export their ideals and never really did export their ideals.
USSR on the other hand had a very clear "global working class paradise" ideal that proliferated messaging and society and was widely exported.
Yes, it was. I think that overall damage that socialism did was more that that of fascism. But you need to understand, why it managed to do that, why it had the appeal. And one of the reasons is that it wasn't that overtly rabid and aggressive.
Yeah, what you are saying is that ussr had an ideology (communism) while ruzzia has jack shit, its just a organized crime syndicate. They are trying to instill nationalism but in a multi ethnic/religious way, and that is hard.
USSR had an ideal and "a promise of a bright future"(all lies, but nonetheless).
Understanding this is critical. Because Russia today is offering none of that. That's the difference.
USSR's actions are irrelevant to the "idealistic image", just like USA's actions are irrelevant to the image of "the American dream".
They inherited their seats in the UN, so why not. In russias view - there are no rules that apply to russia. That is why they are destroying their state as we speak at an accelerating pace.
This should be fixed, Russia left USSR and hould not inherit anything.
Kazakh SSR was renamed to the Republic of Kazakhstan on 10 December 1991. It declared independence on 16 December (the fifth anniversary of Jeltoqsan), becoming the last Soviet constituency to secede.
Kazakhstan should be on the security council if any argument is about 'inherit' these things.
> Kazakhstan should be
The issue is not who was the last to leave the room, but who has taken the obligations. Russia has taken on all Soviet debts and various obligations under international treaties. No other former Soviet republic volunteered so Russia has exclusive claim to any of international assets or rights of the USSR. Specifically regarding Svalbard there had been further treaties between Norway and Russia confirming and clarifying the arrangements.
And they paid it all off - all debts due, with interest?
Edit: well would you look at that...
"By August 21, 2006, all the Soviet era debts to the west are considered to have been paid off by Russian Federation. Following August 21, 2017, the last remaining Soviet Union foreign debt has been repaid, concluding all the Soviet Union legacy debts being repaid in full by Russian Federation. "
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repudiation_of_debt_at_the_Russian_Revolution#:~:text=By%20August%2021%2C%202006%2C%20all,in%20full%20by%20Russian%20Federation
No matter how bad Russian government is at the moment not paying out debt is like last thing any government should do. Low credit rating for countries is crippling.
After russian revolution USSR refused to pay out Russian empire debts and they got completely rekt. No one was willing to trade with them, all assets outside of country got immediately confiscated by countries where they were located.
Your writing gives me fond thoughts of beautiful things to hopefully come - history does not repeat, it rhymes 😍
Dear citizens of russia - please overthrow your tyrant and raise a new flag over the Kremlin. Preferably one without the color red this time.
putler should tell his buddy Kim Jong-un it's time to pay up for the [Volvos](https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/north-korea-ordered-1-000-volvo-cars-from-sweden-and-never-paid-read-the-viral-story-4561242)!
"North Korea placed an order for 1,000 Volvo 144 models and other mechanical equipment worth $73 million with Swedish companies back in 1974. However, North Korea never paid for the order, and since it has remained unpaid for the past 5 decades, the total has increased to approximately $330 million."
Pay us fatty! 🤣
Ah yeah the infamous Volvos! The issue with sanctioning a country that much is that they dont have anything more to lose nor anything to gain from paying so that debt will probably never be payed :/
I often hear "russia is still fighting, so sanctions don't work!" If you ask me, then you have not understood what sanctions are designed to achieve.
They are designed to *weaken* your enemy. They are designed to over decades make you dwarf your enemy financially and militarily. Compare North Korea to South Korea and you see the beautiful result - one is weakened AF and one is strong an prosperous.
I'd say that us Swedes got a pretty good value for our money here...
Exactly. Sanctions arent to directly affect current affairs but to destroy a country longterm.
Altough Russia wont be like North Korea. The benefit of being so tall and being mostly self sufficient. They have their own oil gas, timber, food and so on. Espically considering that most of the world dont have serious sanctions towards Russia and they can still have a decent import and export network. Just not with the EU/America
People overstate the significance of the security council seat. It is not a source of power as much as it is a *recognition* of power. Any state that can issue a veto in the security council could also issue a defacto veto by saying "if you do this, we will use our economic, military and/or nuclear power to stop you".
I agree. Seems a tad too late for that though. The delegates of the russian federation showed up in the UN the Monday following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and everyone just went along with it. I guess nukes have that effect on people.
The Soviet Union was also a defacto continuation of the Russian Empire so to have the former-RSFSR be first in line to inherit its place in the international order is not ridiculous. Especially considering the Soviet capital was Moscow, which is in Russia.
That's not how inheritance works and not how the UN works. The UNSC exists to keep major powers at the table, talking, instead of going to war. Russia is a nuclear power that has shown to be aggresive, you WANT them at that table whether you like it or not. Kazakhstan simply is not. And before you go "look how well that tactic worked out with Russia invading their neighbors", no, that doesn't prove anything. It's very possible the situation would've been a lot worse without Russia at that table.
That is the result, yes.
The choice however was never that, the choice (or lack there of) was that between a system with the intention of providing safety and security for its people - or for its regime, its tyrant.
I think of it as a people who never got to make that choice. It was made for them.
16% interest rate (no investments, no mortgages), Gazprom (it was 40% of their government income before the war) going into debt, inflation and tax raises, 30k dead per month right now, foreign currency reserve almost non-existent, experts estimate that Russia will run out of heavy equipment between 06.2025-06.2026 (burning soviet stockpiles and not enough production capabilities to keep up with their loses), it is even worse with artillery barrels. Please stop already, I cannot eat more popcorn watching this 😀
In 1945, the Ukrainian SSR became one of the founding members of the United Nations (UN).
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#:~:text=In%201945%2C%20the%20Ukrainian%20SSR,though%20they%20were%20not%20independent
Russia kept it going, yeah, although replacing Norwegian flags with Soviet ones kinda sounds like a breach of contract, by stopping to acknowledge Norwegian sovereignty over the island.
It isn’t though. There is no part of the treaty that forces you to raise a Norwegian flag or forbids raising of other flags. And even if there were, it would be invalid on Svalbard as the treaty forbids discrimination based on nationality.
Also according to Norwegian law you are allowed to fly the Norwegian flag whenever you want.
It's the "taking down the norwegian flag" which might be the issue. If they had just raised another flag near it one would have said "kind of rude, but fair enough".
I think that the unspoken implication is that they will no longer let you fly the norwegian flag however you want in Svalbard.
There are no laws against flying foreign flags in general, and sticking a ragged flag of a defunct nation on a makeshift flagpole on a mountain does not constitute any kind of claim worth wasting energy on. Maybe some kind of littering fine when the wind inevitably shreds it.
If Russia where to officially raise any kind of territorial claim it will be vigorously rejected at that time.
As I understood it, a Norwegian flag next to the Russian one was lowered, and the Soviet flag raised instead.
Yeah, still not worth the hassle, but at least the legal side appears to be an open-and-shut case.
There are two settlements in Svalbard that are managed by the Russian mining company https://en.visitsvalbard.com/inspiration/various/barentsburg-and-pyramiden
Pyramiden is now abandoned, but if you compare Barentsburg and then the Norwegian run Longyearbyen it’s pretty obvious which is the Russian one, pretty bleak and depressing
Not really. So firstly every country that signed the treaty recognising that Svalbard is part of Norway is allowed to settle on Svalbard. It was a simple tradeoff. Everyone agrees to let Norway have Svalbard, if they are still allowed to settle there if they want. Legally North Korea could build a town in Svalbard and send North Koreans there. Legally the Norwegian government is not allowed to discriminate based on nationality, meaning a Norwegian and a North Korea both have the exact same right to move to Svalbard.
But Russia never really closed those places. They don’t make money but the Russian government keeps some people there to keep the facilities running to make sure they retain their claims. Even though Norway legally can’t kick them out and Russia agrees to have no ownership claims on Svalbard.
The Soviet Union was a signatory of the 1920 Svalbard Treaty (which now has 45 other countries) which recognises Norwegian sovereignty over the archipelago; forbids military bases and gives the other parties access to its resources - mostly coal mining.
In 1992, Russia declared that it would continue to apply treaties agreed by the Soviet Union, so that's why they still have a presence there. The mining is a fig leaf, its being able to have a presence in that part of the world that really matters.
Russia has a few people still in the settlement and even though Svalbard is not theirs at all (according to the old treaty) they never give up any territory that they have seized.
They are now planning and designing an “Arctic Research Center”. Partners are to be the usual suspects, China, North Korea, Hungary and iirc India. This will allow them to emplacement a lot more equipment and personnel, including security personnel. Russian expansion at its most obvious.
One article I read says the mine is defunct, but the owner of the mine is trying to make it into a tourist destination, so this was probably just a publicity stunt to drum up some news coverage.
From Russia and China presumably? I read they had a little Z day parade at the facility a while back. Complete with cardboard tanks and ill equipped conscripts
They can’t though. As per the treaty that ‘gave’ Svalbard to Norway, other countries are allowed to settle there. Svalbard is technically a weird international zone that is passport free and sort of controlled by Norway.
> Non-discrimination: All citizens and all companies of every nation under the treaty are allowed to become residents and to have access to Svalbard including the right to fish, hunt or undertake any kind of maritime, industrial, mining or trade activity. The residents of Svalbard must follow Norwegian law, though Norwegian authority cannot discriminate against or favour any residents of any given nationality.
Legally, North Korea could start a town in Svalbard. Yes, really. They have signed the treaty recognising Norways control over Svalbard meaning that North Koreans can settle there without any restrictions, as if they were Norwegian citizens.
Svalbard was just considered available land that can be used by anyone, and when countries agreed to ‘give’ Svalbard to Norway they wanted to make sure that they could still use Svalbard if they wanted to. That is why there is a Russian town in what is essentially Norway.
True. But if Norway were to ignore this treaty and kick out the Russians I wouldn’t blame Russia for concluding the treaty has been invalidated. This would probably lead to Russia claiming part of Svalbard as Russian soil, and building a military base there or something stupid.
There are actually wierd international rules and processes that allow to stop some treaties. Like Latvia stoped its treatie with russia because russia has started a war. But im shure, there are legal precident and a way to kick russia out while keeping treaty going on strong. Just need a shit ton of time to find a legal loophole.
Lets remind that international treaties are often full with loopholes.
In that situation, that would be NATO making the first aggressive move by breaking the treaty and trying to force the Russians off of land they have a right to settle under international law
I’m not supporting Russia whatsoever, it just doesn’t make sense to say they would be the ones igniting war in that scenario.
Never. And what are they going to do? Sabotage attacks? Disinformation campaigns? Start a European war?
They can’t do anything we’re not already dealing with, and they aren’t going to start a war with nato.
Throw them into the sea
Doesn't "The residents of Svalbard must follow Norwegian law" applies to citizens of other countries too? North Korean settling there would have to live like Norwegians
Not really and for good reason. Got a few friends either there atm or who worked their in the past
It is beautiful in its own way but harsh, with polar bear numbers making it statistically one of the most dangerous places on the planet with guidelines saying don’t leave the town without a gun large enough to kill a polar bear in the group, and I think technically you aren’t allowed within a pretty large radius of a bear so if you see one you scare them off or go the other way
Everything has to be shipped or flown in so it costs a lot to live there and its dark or light for months a year which is weird to get use to for a lot of people
Sweden and the Netherlands I think. It is so far north but it was used as a waling station and some mining was done there.
The problem is that it doesn’t make money. It is kind of expensive to settle somewhere that inhospitable. Russia just pays the price to keep a presence on Svalbard.
Svalbard can't be used for military purposes, it would violate the treaty so it may not be a security threat as Norway can't militarize the archipelago either.
Norway can't kick anyone out of Svalbard either, they must be non-discriminatory towards signatories of the treaty.
Wouldn't be terribly surprising if Russia decided to do this, but doing so to them first doesn't seem a good idea. It's not like Svalbard is such a big military advantage being the one to break the treaty would be worth the propaganda win doing so would give Russia.
"See - this proves the west is goign to attack us"
Yeah I get that, I was just pointing out that Russia is utterly unreliable and will break treaties whenever they think it benefits them.
Sometimes I wish every neighbouring country to Russia would start taking territory in Russia as part of "Special military operations". It would be a disaster and all out war, but just the idea of giving a bully back their own medicine would be satisfying.
They can use non-military militarised security services from police to coast guard. They can use private security companies - to protect private property and employes if perceived threaten.
They can adopt laws which bans and sanctions usage of such symbols which represent totalitarian regimes, therefore it's a hate speech. Company that did it would be sanctioned by fines or anything else. But I'm not sure how European freedom of speech related intergovernmental organisations will respond to it. Nor I'm sure how Norwegian social democrats will feel, due to a fact that same sentiment was behind Andreas Breiks terrorist attack (anti communist activism) that targeted youth at camp related to social Democrat party.
How would law be enforced if Russian company refuse to comply? Probably the way I meantioned, if there is need for physical involvement like arrests or removing the flag physically? It all depends how you make the law and how you sanction breaches. You could ban organisations that display it, which would make Russian company in svalbard not being able to operate there anymore. Which brings to me question why they even operate due to sanctions... Maybe I'm not Svalbard treaty expert.
But after all why would they do it? Because of salty redditors? If you want war between nato and Russia, it would mean a lot of death to innocent people, not just salty redditors. And possibly nuclear war... What's the point? If Norway wanted to escalate they would have to consult with Nato, because if usa or other members ain't in the mood to get involved in nuclear war over Soviet flag somewhere in artic circle island, Norway would get sanctioned openly by the Nato members for such moves. If anyway Norway continues to escalate nuclear war or any war without any support of Nato members, and they trigger article 5, nato response is obligatory but it doesn't state how much are members obliged to respond. Usa can send coastal guard squad in Oslo and air force sending cargo planes filled with radiation sickness medications that would be sent to Norways storage facilities, or something similar.
Absurd redditors post and comments, typical for last 2 years, I just forgot about all astroturf and bot army, censorship, disinformation war and fact that 8 mods are responsible for 90% of reddits subreddits...
There would be a political move to get this to happen. Russia objects to a lot of stuff, but Norway has the right to rule there. So one example would be for Norway to capture and imprison the fishermen there, as there is currently a conflict over fishing rights around Svalbard. Another one could be for the ruling government of Svalbard to put in taxes on coal mining, for some reason or another. This would hurt the Russian economy there.
Any intervention by Russia, especially if they arrive with something military like, can be seen as a break of the treaty. Any action by Russia with the military can be seen as a breach of article 5.
Norway could, if they want, kick of a real big fight here. But I don't think they wanna.
A skirmish in the arctic would be a perfect pretext for Russia to challenge if NATO Article 5 is holding up. This could lead to a very dangerous situation, especially if and when Trump were in office. It'd be best to proceed with caution, especially when more provocations like this happen in the near future.
The last thing Russia wants is challenge NATO article 5, just in case it works.... they are not in the best shape for a conventional conflict against 60% of world's GDP.
Their goal would of course be to challenge Article 5 in a way where it would not trigger a response from all NATO countries. For example, when the nationalists take over in France, would they be willing to send their soldiers to defend Svalbard?
If the bigger NATO members hesitate to respond, it would undermine the whole of NATO and that would be Russia's goal.
Here's a video from a military expert who explains it better than I ever could:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY7GPBSyONU
moscow signals what will happen after the US retreats from Europe.
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-arctic-yevmenov-expansion-1851238
"Moscow resubmitted claims in 2015 and 2021, proposing that its continental shelf would consist of almost 70 percent of the Arctic Ocean, overlapping EEZs of other Arctic countries such as Denmark and Canada."
Uuuugh for fucks sake. This larping is so exhausting to read about. So much of the regime now is just parasitizing on Soviet legacy one way or the other.
I don’t get why we aren’t using the white/blue/white flag to represent Russia (and the white/red/white for Belarus) at all official functions? And eg on road signs to their embassies…
Russia does a lot of bullshit in Arcric for a while. For starters, there is a whole Barents Observer story and how FSB organized a witch-hunt against Norwegian journalists just for reporting stuff happening in the region.
This is a nothingburger. The Russians have had a small settlement on Svalbard for a hundred years, and have the right to be there.
Who cares which flag they want to flaunt.
The Soviet Union had illegal military forces there for decades.
And it's the likely next place for war in Europe.
https://youtu.be/TQfyZKgHgFM?si=kWWFBI-fHTrPLAOu
The Russians are not occupying Barentsburg. They are mining coal there. Citation is the Svalbard treaty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Treaty
They have the property rights to the land, they bought it from Sweden in 1927. They can place whatever flags they want there.
Even if it was in Norwegian-owned land I think replacing a flag hardly justifies military intervention. Especially when Svalbard by treaty is a demilitarised zone.
Why on earth is that not equally illegal as hoisting a nazi flag is beyond me.
Burn the flag, capital punishment for those responsible for putting it up. Problem solved.
When you have no future false nostalgia for the past is all you can grasp.
It's funny how when the Soviet Union collapsed people thought Russia was heading towards democracy but not only did they elect the most authoritarian possible government but they also said "fuck this I want my empire back" almost immediately. It was like the dumbest scenario possible lol.
That's wrong, during the 90's they had a choice between Yeltsin (he was considered a democrat and was supported by Bill Clinton) and communist party candidates. They chose Yeltsin twice. Despite Russia being completely miserable during Yeltsin's time in office (they had a default in 1998). After the 2 terms were over, Yeltsin left the office as the constitution demanded. He recommended Putin as his replacement. Initially Putin expressed very pro-democratic, pro-western views. However, as oil prices increased and quality of life in Russia skyrocketed, he used this to become increasingly authoritarian. I would argue that Russians never elected the authoritarian candidate until a supposedly democratic one became authoritarian and built the entire regime around him.
Yeltsin's shelling of Parliament also helped a lot.
*It's funny how when the Russian Empire collapsed people thought Russia was heading towards democracy but not only did they elect the most authoritarian possible government but they also said "fuck this I want my empire back" almost immediately.* plus ça change ...
Well they didn't exactly elect the communists, did they.
The thing is that the communists had lost in the Constituent Assembly in 1917, and when the convention was about to be held the bolcheviks dissolved it and there were no more elections where they would've lost anymore 😁
Liberals hate this one weird trick!
These libtards always ruin the fun!
Germany and Russia weren't so different in the 1930s. A decade later, Germany was forced to look deeply and reform itself. Russia never had this moment. The Soviet Union may have collapsed, but no one in Russia stopped to wonder why. They retreated to the borders of the Russian Republic, but nothing otherwise changed. The West also missed an opportunity to be more involved in Russia's reconstruction. Instead we left them to it, and expected things to turn out differently.
Don't even look into national bolshevism. What a massive cope show trying to merge imperialism, bolshevism, sovietism, Christianity, mysiticism and hard line exceptionalist nationalism into one buffet of "we've always been the bestest and greatest and others are absolute shit".
What a fucking cartoon world those people live in. I showed some friends images of their flag and they thought it was from a b-movie or a 4chan meme.
Well people prefered Putin over the oligarchy created in the 90s. Its not that odd. And yes russia was alot more of an oligarchy back then than today
I’m not sure I can agree. They knew that he was the next Tsar to Muscovy and Khan to the provinces, with his own courtiers and so they just got on with daily live and furiously applied for Canadian citizenship
Not sure I understand you correctly? Do you mean that most Russians started to apply for Canadian citizenship?
The fix to an oligarchy is a civil society that actually has the capacity and the desire to have a say in their future. All a leader like Putin does is concentrate the oligarchy and that leads to much worse outcomes, as we see today. Ignoring all moral aspects, Putin seems adamant on leaving the country the way he found it, likely worse.
Well the country needs a decent stable ground to do such things. That wasnt the case in the 90s were oligarchs and criminals ruled the land. Life expectensy amongst men were lower than during WW2. People wanted better quality of life. Putin brought it to them. Hopefully someone better can do something better in the future but I really cant blame the people who supported his ryse to power. Most people would do the same under their circumstances
>And yes russia was alot more of an oligarchy back then than today Serious question, what exactly changed? Russia was ruled by oligarchs in the 90s and they're run by oligarchs now too. Putin imprisoned or killed some of the old ones who supported Yeltsin, and gave power to new ones during his rule. Where's the change?
Yeltsin dident care to do much and let everything has it course which lead to oligarchs seizing power and since oligarchs main focus is earning money, and the poverty in Russia at that time (among other factors) lead to criminality going trough the roof which the oligarchs ofcourse also could use to their advantage. Political power became a tradable goods. Those oligarchs would also trade away natural goods abroad for use to increase their influence. When Putin came to power he used some harch treatment to either get rid of those people or have them join his side with reduced influence. The state took power over the gas and parts of other natural resources and the oligarchs opposing it wasnt in for a good time. He also seized most of the power in the country which lead to it not being able to be bought the same way anymore. Now Putin has the power over Russia while in the 90s it was the oligarchs. The "oligarchs" today is more just like corrupt billionaries than people actually having significant power over the state. The state taking control over the natural resources instead of it being sent abroad cheaply for oligarchs interests, heavily increased the wealth of the country. Even for normal people. That combined with dealing with the criminality significantly improved the living standard for the average Russian. Russia really wasnt a good place in the 90s
Its not ‘funny’. They tried the democratic way but unfortunately they failed because the expectation was that “everything will be better now”. But only hardships followed, and then the leaders were perceived as weak and were replaced basically. If the West wasnt so busy restoring their own cities and/or maybe the US could have stepped up more and guide Russia towards a good democracy, things could have been different. Im not going to blame the West, including the US for not stepping up. The US already did plenty for Europe and Europe itself had its hands full with restoring their cities and lives. But maybe if Russia got some help, and if it would have accepted that help as well.. who knows
It’s almost as if the people there hate democracy in general.
Fascist Nationalism is the only remaining viable option for regime security unfortunately, yes. As it is for China, who are slowly but steadily leaving the international order as we speak.
Is this true about China? I was under the impression they were just starting
The Chinese Communist party will always choose whatever option that solidifies their monopoly on ruling. Historically the people were not rebelling due to weakness and such uprisings being squashed. Then as the ruling party opened up for trade and embraced the international order, the amount of calories exploded. Soon there after, prosperity rose. What always follows is a population that starts to desire to have a say in the political debate: they start demanding democracy. That will not be accepted by the communist party since it challenges their core interest: regime security. Absolut power. With their sabre rattling about Taiwan, the west has quite quickly adopted a policy of gradually making itself anti-fragile, sanction proof, by shifting the only leverage China has over us: production capacity - nearshore and home. My assessment is that we are witnessing the peak if not already the start of the decline of China. And the only way for the ruling class to shift the blame away from themselves is to embrace nationalism. Making it about the survival of the ethnic group Han Chinese. Alas: Fascism.
> The Chinese Communist party will always choose whatever option that solidifies their monopoly on ruling. This is true of **every** ruling cast.
Sure, it's basically the definition of tyranny. The only know antidote is free and fair elections, ie democracy.
Elections are a necessary but insufficient to preserve democracy. Real democracy requires participation (beyond merely voting) and a powerful honest press, transparent government and independent and fair judicial system.
I agree. A population that does not engage and take responsibility and ownership of their democracy risk loosing it.
> What always follows is a population that starts to desire to have a say in the political debate: they start demanding democracy. Total nonsense as is most of what you're saying. There are many totalitarian countries around the world without a significant movement for democracy. Many people are fine with being ruled over by a non-democratic system and many others are indoctrinated into it.
Just as the Chinese have been for decades. But that is dependent on one of who things: a) that they feel that things are getting better for them, as the Chinese have, or b) if things are not getting better, that they blame an "enemy", China will soon be out of option a, enter option b...
China is playing everyone. In a few decades, many countries around the world will be turned into semi-vassal states of china through debt, and buying companies and those countries' infrastructure (which they don't allow other countries to do in China). In Russia, Chinese companies have taken over the financial industry and other important parts of the economy left by western companies. Russia will be completely dependent on China and they'll stripmine that country. They're positioning themselves for world dominance if anything. They'll replace the US as hegemon. It's probably not really popular here to say that but that is what it looks like.
On the first part I agree - the Belt and Road initiative is basically a debt-trap diplomacy scheme. On "They'll replace the US as hegemon" is where I do not. May the best man win!
Replacing the US as hegemon is mainly because they keep electing incompetent corrupt leaders. And both the right and left wing of the US seems to get more isolationist. They'll leave all their allies to fend for themselves which means a lot of them will either be completely overrun by one of their autocratic neighbors since they are too small to defend themselves (like taiwan and baltic states) or fall under their influence (belt road, japan, south korea, eastern europe, maybe even australia). When that happens, US is not the world hegemon anymore.
I think we can agree that the only way the US can be challenged as the world's greatest superpower is if she so chooses herself. China can not challenge the current world order - but the US can unilaterally chose to leave the world stage and become isolationistic. America First might be the shape of thing to come, on that I agree. And if she chooses to no longer enable the global maritime order then we know that America has chosen to focus inwards.
There's another option. 25% of Moscow population is now Muslim. Russia can turn to Islam by majority in less than 40 years if the trend continues.
Press X to doubt. Source? And guess who get's to experience priority draft pick..
It's in Russian, sorry, but you can Google translate it. https://moslenta.com/news/nazvano-chislo-musulman-v-moskve-20-09-2019.htm
Huh. Interesting. Thanks! Sorry for doubting you. It just did not seem like they would do - russia is quite famous for should we say their excellent "[Crowd Control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag)" measures.
Here you go: ,
НО ФУТУРЕ
This isn't nostalgia, just laying the groundwork through third parties ( plausible deniability ) for future expansion. Time tested tactic.
Somehow the Soviet Union returned...
Somehow it feels just as disappointing as in the movie...
They should've done it the simpsons way
Exactly
And then things got worse...
USSR at least had the positive appeal and promises. Russia only has blaming others for not giving what is rightfully theirs.
>Ukraine >USSR at least had the positive appeal and promises You can sometimes witness truly amazing content on this website
Ussr was a fascist totalitarian regime guilty of war crimes, genocide and many crimes against humanity. How are you, being from Ukraine, no less, saying anything about positive appeal of ussr?
I guess u/lazyubertoad tried to say that USSR (totalitarian, anti-human, genocidal and simply ugly) at least continiusly made all these "peace for all" and "everyone will be happy under communism" statements. Yes, it's a lie, but still they TRIED to look nice. And Russia doesn't even try.
Fair enough, but then we do have North Korea that is making all the same claims and even calls itself democratic - I don’t see them getting much appeal?
USSR did it badly too. It's about "trying to get", not "getting". But yeah, I understand you and agree with you - that's just hypocrisy.
North Korea doesn't export their ideals and never really did export their ideals. USSR on the other hand had a very clear "global working class paradise" ideal that proliferated messaging and society and was widely exported.
Yes, it was. I think that overall damage that socialism did was more that that of fascism. But you need to understand, why it managed to do that, why it had the appeal. And one of the reasons is that it wasn't that overtly rabid and aggressive.
Yeah, what you are saying is that ussr had an ideology (communism) while ruzzia has jack shit, its just a organized crime syndicate. They are trying to instill nationalism but in a multi ethnic/religious way, and that is hard.
USSR had an ideal and "a promise of a bright future"(all lies, but nonetheless). Understanding this is critical. Because Russia today is offering none of that. That's the difference. USSR's actions are irrelevant to the "idealistic image", just like USA's actions are irrelevant to the image of "the American dream".
https://youtu.be/bBMeMrPuQyU?si=2R2rN7msCs0cHSGw
Must... crush... CAPITALISM!
Any context? I thought the Soviet mining facility has long since been abandoned, did Russia inherit the mining rights or something?
They inherited their seats in the UN, so why not. In russias view - there are no rules that apply to russia. That is why they are destroying their state as we speak at an accelerating pace.
This should be fixed, Russia left USSR and hould not inherit anything. Kazakh SSR was renamed to the Republic of Kazakhstan on 10 December 1991. It declared independence on 16 December (the fifth anniversary of Jeltoqsan), becoming the last Soviet constituency to secede. Kazakhstan should be on the security council if any argument is about 'inherit' these things.
> Kazakhstan should be The issue is not who was the last to leave the room, but who has taken the obligations. Russia has taken on all Soviet debts and various obligations under international treaties. No other former Soviet republic volunteered so Russia has exclusive claim to any of international assets or rights of the USSR. Specifically regarding Svalbard there had been further treaties between Norway and Russia confirming and clarifying the arrangements.
Russia inherited it all since they are the only country that took on itself debt that USSR had.
And they paid it all off - all debts due, with interest? Edit: well would you look at that... "By August 21, 2006, all the Soviet era debts to the west are considered to have been paid off by Russian Federation. Following August 21, 2017, the last remaining Soviet Union foreign debt has been repaid, concluding all the Soviet Union legacy debts being repaid in full by Russian Federation. " Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repudiation_of_debt_at_the_Russian_Revolution#:~:text=By%20August%2021%2C%202006%2C%20all,in%20full%20by%20Russian%20Federation
No matter how bad Russian government is at the moment not paying out debt is like last thing any government should do. Low credit rating for countries is crippling. After russian revolution USSR refused to pay out Russian empire debts and they got completely rekt. No one was willing to trade with them, all assets outside of country got immediately confiscated by countries where they were located.
Your writing gives me fond thoughts of beautiful things to hopefully come - history does not repeat, it rhymes 😍 Dear citizens of russia - please overthrow your tyrant and raise a new flag over the Kremlin. Preferably one without the color red this time.
>Dear citizens of russia - please overthrow your tyrant Don't hold your breath. The only way is that russia is defeated in Ukraine.
We're not - so that is the plan. 🇺🇦 Slava Ukraini! 🇺🇦
[Ukrainian Drone Invades Russia and Plants the Flag!](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/L3sXduVgjXE) 🇺🇦 Heroyam Slava! 🇺🇦 🇸🇪 Heroyam Sverige 🇸🇪
Hmmm. Nope.
Nice to see you here! Intresting. i had no idea about this nor the debt thing. Good to know :)
putler should tell his buddy Kim Jong-un it's time to pay up for the [Volvos](https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/north-korea-ordered-1-000-volvo-cars-from-sweden-and-never-paid-read-the-viral-story-4561242)! "North Korea placed an order for 1,000 Volvo 144 models and other mechanical equipment worth $73 million with Swedish companies back in 1974. However, North Korea never paid for the order, and since it has remained unpaid for the past 5 decades, the total has increased to approximately $330 million." Pay us fatty! 🤣
Ah yeah the infamous Volvos! The issue with sanctioning a country that much is that they dont have anything more to lose nor anything to gain from paying so that debt will probably never be payed :/
I often hear "russia is still fighting, so sanctions don't work!" If you ask me, then you have not understood what sanctions are designed to achieve. They are designed to *weaken* your enemy. They are designed to over decades make you dwarf your enemy financially and militarily. Compare North Korea to South Korea and you see the beautiful result - one is weakened AF and one is strong an prosperous. I'd say that us Swedes got a pretty good value for our money here...
Exactly. Sanctions arent to directly affect current affairs but to destroy a country longterm. Altough Russia wont be like North Korea. The benefit of being so tall and being mostly self sufficient. They have their own oil gas, timber, food and so on. Espically considering that most of the world dont have serious sanctions towards Russia and they can still have a decent import and export network. Just not with the EU/America
People overstate the significance of the security council seat. It is not a source of power as much as it is a *recognition* of power. Any state that can issue a veto in the security council could also issue a defacto veto by saying "if you do this, we will use our economic, military and/or nuclear power to stop you".
It’s basically just recognition of the fact that the USSR was always just another Russian Empire anyway
I agree. Seems a tad too late for that though. The delegates of the russian federation showed up in the UN the Monday following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and everyone just went along with it. I guess nukes have that effect on people.
The Soviet Union was also a defacto continuation of the Russian Empire so to have the former-RSFSR be first in line to inherit its place in the international order is not ridiculous. Especially considering the Soviet capital was Moscow, which is in Russia.
That's not how inheritance works and not how the UN works. The UNSC exists to keep major powers at the table, talking, instead of going to war. Russia is a nuclear power that has shown to be aggresive, you WANT them at that table whether you like it or not. Kazakhstan simply is not. And before you go "look how well that tactic worked out with Russia invading their neighbors", no, that doesn't prove anything. It's very possible the situation would've been a lot worse without Russia at that table.
By that logic the UK is the successor of the Western Roman Empire.
they inherited the nukes, that's all that matters
Instead of being a great prosperious nation, Russia chose to be the shit-heels of history, because making stuff is hard.
That is the result, yes. The choice however was never that, the choice (or lack there of) was that between a system with the intention of providing safety and security for its people - or for its regime, its tyrant. I think of it as a people who never got to make that choice. It was made for them.
16% interest rate (no investments, no mortgages), Gazprom (it was 40% of their government income before the war) going into debt, inflation and tax raises, 30k dead per month right now, foreign currency reserve almost non-existent, experts estimate that Russia will run out of heavy equipment between 06.2025-06.2026 (burning soviet stockpiles and not enough production capabilities to keep up with their loses), it is even worse with artillery barrels. Please stop already, I cannot eat more popcorn watching this 😀
France, UK and the US - Give lots of Nukes to Poland now! 🇵🇱
Didn’t Ukraine have a seat in addition to the USSR too though? The Soviets really wanted to rig the system didn’t they?
In 1945, the Ukrainian SSR became one of the founding members of the United Nations (UN). Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#:~:text=In%201945%2C%20the%20Ukrainian%20SSR,though%20they%20were%20not%20independent
Russia kept it going, yeah, although replacing Norwegian flags with Soviet ones kinda sounds like a breach of contract, by stopping to acknowledge Norwegian sovereignty over the island.
Absolutely, Norway need to reassert control over the whole compound. Russia just gave them just cause to do so
We can’t, according to the Svalbard Treaty
The argument is that replacing the flags is a breach of the treaty.
It isn’t though. There is no part of the treaty that forces you to raise a Norwegian flag or forbids raising of other flags. And even if there were, it would be invalid on Svalbard as the treaty forbids discrimination based on nationality. Also according to Norwegian law you are allowed to fly the Norwegian flag whenever you want.
It's the "taking down the norwegian flag" which might be the issue. If they had just raised another flag near it one would have said "kind of rude, but fair enough". I think that the unspoken implication is that they will no longer let you fly the norwegian flag however you want in Svalbard.
Russia respect the treaties too. In few years, it wont yours
There are no laws against flying foreign flags in general, and sticking a ragged flag of a defunct nation on a makeshift flagpole on a mountain does not constitute any kind of claim worth wasting energy on. Maybe some kind of littering fine when the wind inevitably shreds it. If Russia where to officially raise any kind of territorial claim it will be vigorously rejected at that time.
As I understood it, a Norwegian flag next to the Russian one was lowered, and the Soviet flag raised instead. Yeah, still not worth the hassle, but at least the legal side appears to be an open-and-shut case.
There are two settlements in Svalbard that are managed by the Russian mining company https://en.visitsvalbard.com/inspiration/various/barentsburg-and-pyramiden
Pyramiden is now abandoned, but if you compare Barentsburg and then the Norwegian run Longyearbyen it’s pretty obvious which is the Russian one, pretty bleak and depressing
Barentsburg is like a mini-version of Russia: Miserable, megalomanic people squatting in the decaying ruins of an empire.
As they say in Norway: "Barna lengter etter Store Norske Spitsbergen Kulkompani."
Not really. So firstly every country that signed the treaty recognising that Svalbard is part of Norway is allowed to settle on Svalbard. It was a simple tradeoff. Everyone agrees to let Norway have Svalbard, if they are still allowed to settle there if they want. Legally North Korea could build a town in Svalbard and send North Koreans there. Legally the Norwegian government is not allowed to discriminate based on nationality, meaning a Norwegian and a North Korea both have the exact same right to move to Svalbard. But Russia never really closed those places. They don’t make money but the Russian government keeps some people there to keep the facilities running to make sure they retain their claims. Even though Norway legally can’t kick them out and Russia agrees to have no ownership claims on Svalbard.
The Soviet Union was a signatory of the 1920 Svalbard Treaty (which now has 45 other countries) which recognises Norwegian sovereignty over the archipelago; forbids military bases and gives the other parties access to its resources - mostly coal mining. In 1992, Russia declared that it would continue to apply treaties agreed by the Soviet Union, so that's why they still have a presence there. The mining is a fig leaf, its being able to have a presence in that part of the world that really matters.
Russia has a few people still in the settlement and even though Svalbard is not theirs at all (according to the old treaty) they never give up any territory that they have seized. They are now planning and designing an “Arctic Research Center”. Partners are to be the usual suspects, China, North Korea, Hungary and iirc India. This will allow them to emplacement a lot more equipment and personnel, including security personnel. Russian expansion at its most obvious.
One article I read says the mine is defunct, but the owner of the mine is trying to make it into a tourist destination, so this was probably just a publicity stunt to drum up some news coverage.
From Russia and China presumably? I read they had a little Z day parade at the facility a while back. Complete with cardboard tanks and ill equipped conscripts
Obligatory Simpsons reference https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uDXtVlG2VW0
Time for Norway to kick out the trash.
They can’t though. As per the treaty that ‘gave’ Svalbard to Norway, other countries are allowed to settle there. Svalbard is technically a weird international zone that is passport free and sort of controlled by Norway. > Non-discrimination: All citizens and all companies of every nation under the treaty are allowed to become residents and to have access to Svalbard including the right to fish, hunt or undertake any kind of maritime, industrial, mining or trade activity. The residents of Svalbard must follow Norwegian law, though Norwegian authority cannot discriminate against or favour any residents of any given nationality. Legally, North Korea could start a town in Svalbard. Yes, really. They have signed the treaty recognising Norways control over Svalbard meaning that North Koreans can settle there without any restrictions, as if they were Norwegian citizens. Svalbard was just considered available land that can be used by anyone, and when countries agreed to ‘give’ Svalbard to Norway they wanted to make sure that they could still use Svalbard if they wanted to. That is why there is a Russian town in what is essentially Norway.
Since when has Russia started abiding by treaties it signed?
True. But if Norway were to ignore this treaty and kick out the Russians I wouldn’t blame Russia for concluding the treaty has been invalidated. This would probably lead to Russia claiming part of Svalbard as Russian soil, and building a military base there or something stupid.
There are actually wierd international rules and processes that allow to stop some treaties. Like Latvia stoped its treatie with russia because russia has started a war. But im shure, there are legal precident and a way to kick russia out while keeping treaty going on strong. Just need a shit ton of time to find a legal loophole. Lets remind that international treaties are often full with loopholes.
And in doing so, ignite a full scale war with NATO? I like to think they have at least SOME self-preservation instinct left.
In that situation, that would be NATO making the first aggressive move by breaking the treaty and trying to force the Russians off of land they have a right to settle under international law I’m not supporting Russia whatsoever, it just doesn’t make sense to say they would be the ones igniting war in that scenario.
Yeah. Two wrongs don't make a right or how it went
Nah in that case it wouldnt be a defensive war
Never. And what are they going to do? Sabotage attacks? Disinformation campaigns? Start a European war? They can’t do anything we’re not already dealing with, and they aren’t going to start a war with nato. Throw them into the sea
When it suits them.
Doesn't "The residents of Svalbard must follow Norwegian law" applies to citizens of other countries too? North Korean settling there would have to live like Norwegians
They would have to abide by Norwegian law and pay Svalbard taxes. But beyond that they would be free to do whatever.
yes but want I meant is that they shouldn't be able to do anything "north korean"
now i really want NK to build a settlement there and film a reality show :D
We should invite the US to make a settlement 100m next to it
Time to change that.
”Release the polar bears!”
Ah, the famous bear cavalry.
Has any other nation had a settlement on Svalbard?
Not really and for good reason. Got a few friends either there atm or who worked their in the past It is beautiful in its own way but harsh, with polar bear numbers making it statistically one of the most dangerous places on the planet with guidelines saying don’t leave the town without a gun large enough to kill a polar bear in the group, and I think technically you aren’t allowed within a pretty large radius of a bear so if you see one you scare them off or go the other way Everything has to be shipped or flown in so it costs a lot to live there and its dark or light for months a year which is weird to get use to for a lot of people
The Netherlands had a failed attempt at a mining town if memory serves
Sweden and the Netherlands I think. It is so far north but it was used as a waling station and some mining was done there. The problem is that it doesn’t make money. It is kind of expensive to settle somewhere that inhospitable. Russia just pays the price to keep a presence on Svalbard.
Tell the residents to shelter in place and give the bears meth.
Perhaps Russia should pray we don’t alter the deal then.
Then Norway should put up a Norwegian flag if they haven’t already.
USSR doesn't exist as a nation, Norway can ban its symbols in Svalbard
Nope. Norways has freedom of expression. It doesnt matter if its an existing nation or not.
I wonder why Russia's neighbours want to join NATO ?
Cosplayers.
Norway focus tree : Remilitarization of Svalbard - **click**
A bottle of lighter liquid and a lighter could solve this insult really fast.
Or a Ukrainian drone
Can Norway kick Russia out? It could be a major Security threat to have Russian towns inside of territory of a NATO member
Need other powerful western countries to back Norway then, in removing the stupid Svalbard treaty
Svalbard can't be used for military purposes, it would violate the treaty so it may not be a security threat as Norway can't militarize the archipelago either. Norway can't kick anyone out of Svalbard either, they must be non-discriminatory towards signatories of the treaty.
"it would violate the treaty" Like all the other treaties Russia has violated?
Wouldn't be terribly surprising if Russia decided to do this, but doing so to them first doesn't seem a good idea. It's not like Svalbard is such a big military advantage being the one to break the treaty would be worth the propaganda win doing so would give Russia. "See - this proves the west is goign to attack us"
Yeah I get that, I was just pointing out that Russia is utterly unreliable and will break treaties whenever they think it benefits them. Sometimes I wish every neighbouring country to Russia would start taking territory in Russia as part of "Special military operations". It would be a disaster and all out war, but just the idea of giving a bully back their own medicine would be satisfying.
The Soviet Union also violated this particular treaty. They had armed soldiers masquerading as miners in Svalbard for large parts of the cold war.
Oh sure, Russia is hardly an idol for comparison. Just stating what the treaty allows is all.
>it would violate the treaty Russia has a good track record of doing that recently
They can use non-military militarised security services from police to coast guard. They can use private security companies - to protect private property and employes if perceived threaten. They can adopt laws which bans and sanctions usage of such symbols which represent totalitarian regimes, therefore it's a hate speech. Company that did it would be sanctioned by fines or anything else. But I'm not sure how European freedom of speech related intergovernmental organisations will respond to it. Nor I'm sure how Norwegian social democrats will feel, due to a fact that same sentiment was behind Andreas Breiks terrorist attack (anti communist activism) that targeted youth at camp related to social Democrat party. How would law be enforced if Russian company refuse to comply? Probably the way I meantioned, if there is need for physical involvement like arrests or removing the flag physically? It all depends how you make the law and how you sanction breaches. You could ban organisations that display it, which would make Russian company in svalbard not being able to operate there anymore. Which brings to me question why they even operate due to sanctions... Maybe I'm not Svalbard treaty expert. But after all why would they do it? Because of salty redditors? If you want war between nato and Russia, it would mean a lot of death to innocent people, not just salty redditors. And possibly nuclear war... What's the point? If Norway wanted to escalate they would have to consult with Nato, because if usa or other members ain't in the mood to get involved in nuclear war over Soviet flag somewhere in artic circle island, Norway would get sanctioned openly by the Nato members for such moves. If anyway Norway continues to escalate nuclear war or any war without any support of Nato members, and they trigger article 5, nato response is obligatory but it doesn't state how much are members obliged to respond. Usa can send coastal guard squad in Oslo and air force sending cargo planes filled with radiation sickness medications that would be sent to Norways storage facilities, or something similar. Absurd redditors post and comments, typical for last 2 years, I just forgot about all astroturf and bot army, censorship, disinformation war and fact that 8 mods are responsible for 90% of reddits subreddits...
There would be a political move to get this to happen. Russia objects to a lot of stuff, but Norway has the right to rule there. So one example would be for Norway to capture and imprison the fishermen there, as there is currently a conflict over fishing rights around Svalbard. Another one could be for the ruling government of Svalbard to put in taxes on coal mining, for some reason or another. This would hurt the Russian economy there. Any intervention by Russia, especially if they arrive with something military like, can be seen as a break of the treaty. Any action by Russia with the military can be seen as a breach of article 5. Norway could, if they want, kick of a real big fight here. But I don't think they wanna.
A skirmish in the arctic would be a perfect pretext for Russia to challenge if NATO Article 5 is holding up. This could lead to a very dangerous situation, especially if and when Trump were in office. It'd be best to proceed with caution, especially when more provocations like this happen in the near future.
Article 5 lets countries decide how they answer to an attack. A decision could very well be sanctions, strong worded letter, etc
The last thing Russia wants is challenge NATO article 5, just in case it works.... they are not in the best shape for a conventional conflict against 60% of world's GDP.
Their goal would of course be to challenge Article 5 in a way where it would not trigger a response from all NATO countries. For example, when the nationalists take over in France, would they be willing to send their soldiers to defend Svalbard? If the bigger NATO members hesitate to respond, it would undermine the whole of NATO and that would be Russia's goal. Here's a video from a military expert who explains it better than I ever could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY7GPBSyONU
It is worth noting that during the entire cold war, there were these Russian towns in Svalbard. The treaty allowing this predates the cold war.
It is kind of Russia to provide the people of Svalbard with an alternative in case toilet paper runs out.
moscow signals what will happen after the US retreats from Europe. https://www.newsweek.com/russia-arctic-yevmenov-expansion-1851238 "Moscow resubmitted claims in 2015 and 2021, proposing that its continental shelf would consist of almost 70 percent of the Arctic Ocean, overlapping EEZs of other Arctic countries such as Denmark and Canada."
why
Yet more trolling. Putin's regime is capitalist oligarchy
Lol why fly a loser flag?
It begins
Svalbard is like the planet Nimbus III of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
Its weird seing a wikibox i did for an Alt history becoming reality ...
Uuuugh for fucks sake. This larping is so exhausting to read about. So much of the regime now is just parasitizing on Soviet legacy one way or the other.
I don’t get why we aren’t using the white/blue/white flag to represent Russia (and the white/red/white for Belarus) at all official functions? And eg on road signs to their embassies…
Russia does a lot of bullshit in Arcric for a while. For starters, there is a whole Barents Observer story and how FSB organized a witch-hunt against Norwegian journalists just for reporting stuff happening in the region.
This is a nothingburger. The Russians have had a small settlement on Svalbard for a hundred years, and have the right to be there. Who cares which flag they want to flaunt.
The Soviet Union had illegal military forces there for decades. And it's the likely next place for war in Europe. https://youtu.be/TQfyZKgHgFM?si=kWWFBI-fHTrPLAOu
[удалено]
> Citation needed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Treaty
The Russians are not occupying Barentsburg. They are mining coal there. Citation is the Svalbard treaty. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Treaty
They are there legally, but it's completely obvious they are not mining coal but rather "mining coal" as an excuse for other activities
[удалено]
They have the property rights to the land, they bought it from Sweden in 1927. They can place whatever flags they want there. Even if it was in Norwegian-owned land I think replacing a flag hardly justifies military intervention. Especially when Svalbard by treaty is a demilitarised zone.
Why on earth is that not equally illegal as hoisting a nazi flag is beyond me. Burn the flag, capital punishment for those responsible for putting it up. Problem solved.
[удалено]
Who? Russia? Russia represents the most bizarre capitalism from the soviet propaganda posters
[The return of Soviet Empire](https://youtu.be/z77JFw2D6f8?si=qQgOGdyO4APN93PW)
Failed state again and forever.
Svalbard is not Russia!
Toilet paper substitute?
They really want all Europe invading Moscow, don't they?
Why do norwegians tolerate this?
We should kick them out. They sabotage us all the time. Let's start fires in Russia