The critical thing is not so much "Americans" as "big money". Big Russian money is also a threat. Big Chinese money .. well, there's a bit of that about, but it doesn't seem to have shown up at the legislation influencing layer.

▲

axegon_ 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Oh, that's a different topic: as someone from and living in eastern Europe, there's not a single doubt in my mind that the biggest threat to any civilization is russia by a long shot. The alarming part is that the current US administration hasn't got a single clue of history, suffers from chronic incompetence and the whole superiority complex and fanboying russia as a consequence - those pose a threat. In the context of the conversation, the incompetence is arguably the biggest facepalm moment.

▲

officeplant an hour ago | parent | next [-]

>biggest threat to any civilization is russia by a long shot

I don't mean to be the average gloating US citizen, but I'm pretty sure we're the largest threat to the Earth.

	▲	bojan an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Only because of Russian money and influence that helped this administration to power. The root of the problem is Russia, always has been.

▲

lionkor 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> the biggest threat to any civilization is russia

Surely you meant this as hyperbole, right? If not, I would love your reasoning as to why its a bigger threat than literally anything and anyone else.

▲

axegon_ 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> someone from and living in eastern Europe

Reasoning: experience.

▲

edgyquant 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Most civilization is not in Eastern Europe though, Russia is not a threat outside of its immediate proximity and its relative strength has only lessened over the decades

	▲	bojan an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Russia is not a _physical_ threat outside of its immediate proximity. But they invest large amounts of money to propaganda channels everywhere, have direct military influence in large parts of Africa, are known to poison people in the UK and elsewhere, etc. > its relative strength has only lessened over the decades Russia is not a _physical_ threat outside of its immediate proximity. But they invest large amounts of money to propaganda channels everywhere, have direct military influence in large parts of Africa, are known to poison people in the UK and elsewhere, etc.
	▲	lionkor 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		At this point the US is arguably a much larger threat to random small countries. "We will make so much money if we find a reason to attack <your country>" is the real threat, if any. Of course, far behind other existential threats.

▲

lionkor 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Experience is no good reason to make a blanket statement about a country and all its people, especially not when it's made with such an assertive voice.

▲

axegon_ 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Is it not? Have you heard about a TV program called the news? They have caused more death to eastern Europe than Hitler did in WW2 and is continuing to do so, has infiltrated countries and governments for generations, actively threatens everyone on daily basis and the entirety of their social media (domestically and expats/immigrants/spies) is nothing but endless wishes for death of anyone that is not russian. Westerners see that through the prism of "out of sight, out of mind" + language barrier, but the threat is neither out of sight, nor out of mind. Spend a few hours on bellingcat and you'll quickly change your mind.

▲

lionkor 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Experience is no good reason to make a blanket statement about a country and all its people

> Is it not?

No, and no part of your comment really seems to argue otherwise? I know about current world events. Your argument was that "experience" is a good enough reason to make a blanket statement about a country and all its people, and you doubled down on it, so it's not even like I'm constructing a strawman here or anything.

It's just wild to me how far this kind of blind hate goes. If "experience" is enough to say that a country is a bigger threat to civilization(!) than, lets say, pandemics, natural disasters, global nuclear war, etc., then there really remains no basis for any kind of healthy discussion. At that point it's just blind hatred.

▲

axegon_ an hour ago | parent [-]

I've never been subtle about how I feel about russians: Private properties confiscated. Several instances of terminal diseases in my family as a direct consequence of their actions. Several instances of people spending their entire lives in concentration camps, several instances of people being thrown out of hospitals and let to die in the streets. To the point where I barely have any living relatives. And in recent years, death of a number of close friends. And I am supposed to have a different feelings? Come back to me when you go through the same.

	▲	lionkor an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I'm sorry, I don't mean to invalidate your own experiences. I understand the need for hyperbole, and I also cannot even begin to understand the pain and suffering that you must have experienced. I'm not talking about that. I'm trying to steer the conversation to stay factual, because I usually appreciate HN for its clear communication style. Sorry for offending you and I'm sorry if I've caused you further suffering. Let's not continue this conversation.

▲

pjc50 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think this is entirely reasonable given the history of Russia vs Eastern Europe, but especially the invasion of Ukraine. Russia is currently being held at the Dnipro river, but Putin has stated his intention to "recapture" most of the former USSR.

▲

lionkor 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Putin has stated his intention to "recapture" most of the former USSR.

I keep hearing this but I struggle to find any sources, beyond articles like [1] which are... not particularly good sources, even a reddit comment would be a better primary source than that.

I'm not trying to be combative, I just genuinely struggle to find primary sources, probably because I'm using the wrong keywords or something.

I understand the reasoning, but I would love to actually see/read/hear/whatever where Putin "states" this desire explicitly!

[1] https://gppreview.com/2015/02/12/putins-dream-reborn-ussr-un...

▲

heavyset_go 2 hours ago | parent [-]

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics#In_...

▲

lionkor an hour ago | parent [-]

That's a book by Aleksandr Dugin, not Putin. I was asking specifically if there are ANY sources for the recurring statement that Putin wants to conquer back former USSR states. I see why its concerning, and how Dugin's close ties to the government are interesting, but I do not see a quote, or any other source, where Putin explicitly STATES this intent. I don't see it.

Surely I'm missing something here. Putin's 2023 "The Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation" also does not state conquering back former USSR states. Where is it? If he states it so clearly that people keep quoting it, surely there must be a source for it? Sorry if I'm a PITA.

To be clear, I'm interested in this because this would be a fantastic argument to bring to discussions, but without having seen a source, I don't think I could.

▲

AnimalMuppet an hour ago | parent [-]

Imagine that someone writes a post saying something outrageous. And imagine that Trump retweets it. He didn't say it... but he kind of did.

I think Dugin's book is like that. Sure, Dugin said it, not Putin. But IIRC Putin did some things to make Dugin's book more influential. I forget the specifics - making it required reading in the Russian military academies, maybe?

There have been other statements by Russian politicians who are widely regarded as Putin's mouthpieces. Medvedev, certain key figures in the Russian parliament. I know I've seen that, though I don't recall the specifics.

So Putin maybe didn't say it. And yet, his endorsed mouthpieces (more than one) do say it.

You said "without having seen a source". Well, I didn't give you one. But if you want to look, I have given some places to start.

▲

lionkor an hour ago | parent [-]

I fully get that! I understand how people get to that conclusion. What I don't understand is why I repeatedly see people online, also on HN (as you can see), who claim that Putin "stated" that he wants to rebuild the USSR, when I can't find any source that he did.

> making it required reading in the Russian military academies, maybe

Yeah, I think he did.

> So Putin maybe didn't say it.

That's my concern. When people make the statement that he did, when he didn't, they essentially preempt any reasonably discussion and start it off on the entirely wrong foot.

If I want to have a discussion with my neighbor about him not cleaning up his own trash, surely I would not start the discussion with "you LOVE living in trash, don't you", even if I can reasonably deduce that he does. It just turns the entire discussion hostile to make claims that aren't supported, and it weakens all subsequent arguments!

▲

AnimalMuppet an hour ago | parent [-]

But does it start the discussion off on the entirely wrong foot? If Putin endorses Dugin's book, requiring the military academies to read it, don't we have fairly high confidence that it is at least close to Putin's position?

So I don't think it's the entirely wrong foot. It's a shortcut and an imprecision, but the point (that Putin actually thinks this) seems to be valid. (Though one should have less than 100% certainty that it represents his position - but with Putin, that should apply to a direct quote as well.)

	▲	lionkor 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The statement should be "he endorses XZY who/which argues for reforming the USSR by force" or something. I think factual accuracy is the one thing we need to hold ourselves to, to the best of our abilities, also to ensure that we don't create an echo chamber and can keep our biases in check a bit more.