Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Russian invasion of Ukraine “may be imminent” warns White House - BBC News" video.

They tried. In 2009 when Opel a (German-founded, American owned) car company went bankrupt, Russia offered to buy it out for $30B and set up shop in Kaliningrad. The White House intervened and refused to close the sale... as the company continued to hemorrhage money. It was seen as a humiliation to sell to the Russians. You can't claim to want to integrate someone into your economic system and then actively take steps to prevent it.
53
This would only validate the fears of the Russians (and eastern, pro-Russian Ukrainians) and raise the stakes even higher. Or escalate to war. The only way out of an arms race is for cooler heads to prevail. In other words: not yours.
6
@Debre. That wasn't the primary reason internally cited for the blocking of the sale- it was primarily fears of a technology transfer (which makes little sense- Russia already made its own cars, and had demonstrated a capability to use them to 'invade', selling Opel would not have changed that) but more importantly, GMC had a huge stake in Russia, at the time largest player in Russian market, and wanted to protect the status quo. Again, if both American government and companies are working to slow Russia's economic development, the U.S cannot claim that it ever wanted to help Russia develop. Should just admit they wanted to further kick their enemy, and face the political repercussions. Democracy requires honesty after all, right?
3
@jonathandavx lol, prove me wrong instead of namecalling. Oh wait you can't
2
@Debre. Also, the 2008 invasion was to secure the minority-dominated Ossetian region of Georgia, which was starting to see fighting spill over from the 1993 war (which Georgia started against its Abkhaz minority population).
2
@Debre. You may not care about the stated reason, but those were the motivations of the Americans who, at the time, promised Russia integration. And you can't really make the argument in hindsight, since none of this had actually transpired yet, and I think much, or at least some, of this mess could have been avoided if the Americans had actually followed through on their promises. You act like it was completely inevitable that Russia was going to act this way--- and that it's a good thing the U.S inflicted pain on them proactively, because look at how aggressive they've become! I have news for you: that's not how the flow of time works. It moves forwards, not backwards, and whatever you may think of the Russian state in the long run, it had genuinely tried to open up economically and politically during the Yeltsin/2000s Putin years. The poor treatment of it by the West (Washington rigging Yeltsin's 2nd election, on principle alone, should have been enough to convince the Russians to get aggressive (the US did in 2016). But they continued to try and engage. The extrajudicial killing of Gaddafi was what crossed the line. The West's continued spite and isolation of Russia created its aggressive behavior, not the other way around. We were duped. Never again.
2
@Debre. And, interestingly enough, you (unlike those Americans) have the benefit of hindsight. Has the isolation of Russia done anything to stop it? The ruble's value against USD more than halved, and nothing changed. Russia can barely do business anymore- and nothing changed. In fact, sanctions spurred a domestic food industry revival. You have 8 years of evidence to suggest that punishment will not alter behavior, and yet you're committed to this idea because... "we need to 'be tough' on Russia!"? In fact, the further isolation may actually increase the chances that Russia attacks. It was never brought into the international economy, so it had little to lose by engaging in such behavior. America plans to cut it off from the SWIFT banking system, isolating it completely. If the state survives, what is there left to leverage with? What exactly is America's plan here? They've even taken to sanctioning before invasion- so if they're sanctioned either way, why not create a buffer with the West? America's plan, currently, is all stick and no carrot. You can have your ideological reasons to hate Russia, but incentives are not appeasement. Give Russia something precious to lose (an integrated, diverse economy?), and it will be more willing to negotiate with the countries upon whom Russia would then depend.
2
@sgtgrash Ah yes, the entire Cold War vs. ...your anecdote. I'm sure you're smarter and wiser than the combined knowledge of thousands of statesmen of all the countries involved. I'll let you in on a secret: states aren't people, nor do they "think" like them. And it is ironic that you bring up Hitler, since it is because of him, (among others), that Russia does not trust the assurances of the West, that nothing at all will happen if NATO is allowed to its border. Gaddafi was promised the same thing- look at what Libya went through because its (brutal, but at least competent) leader believed the U.S's security "guarantees."
1
@marny3559 "anyone I don't like = bot" lol You really think I am one? Go ahead.
1