Russia at the end of the cold war had geopolitical imperatives such as a warm water ports, buffer states and desire for Russian hegemony that would have existed regardless of their economic state. They also have a long, long history of authoritarianism.
Please don't make assumptions about what other people have or haven't studied.
> They also have a long, long history of authoritarianism.
You could say the same about the Axis powers in WW2.
Eagerly awaiting that occurrence...
"Can you believe Russia would invade to get a warm water port?!"
Yes, I would.
Btw your analogy of "why isn't germany authoritarian" is off the mark, because the Russians and NATO completely dismantled the existing power structures post ww2 through force. We did not do anything close to that post cold war. In fact the communist party still exists today in Russia.
Another point is that the US made it clear it would not tolerate an openly authoritarian government in Western Europe but would tolerate far right groups for its own purposes against communism.
> "Can you believe Russia would invade to get a warm water port?!"
> Yes, I would.
You couldn't have a more blatant straw man argument.
I'm not going to reply to you anymore. All you're doing here is chest beating.
They weren't. Please don't put words in others' mouths.
And quit whining about the guidelines when you're violating them at least as much as anyone else.
They were. To make it even more obvious: "I think someone needs to read a little more history" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32665292
> And quit whining about the guidelines
No. And your comment is blatantly violating the guidelines.
> you're violating them at least as much as anyone else
Nothing nearly as bad as your comment. Also, even if you believe that someone else is violating the guidelines, that doesn't justify your own violations, unless you have complete disregard for them.
> They were.
Nope. "If you study geopolitics and history, you might come to the conclusion that Russia was never going to be a democratic ally of the West regardless of how much economic aid they were given" is only a prediction of one likely result of an action.
It's only a commentary on one's person if one is the kind of person who thinks everything is about them.
> To make it even more obvious: "I think someone needs to read a little more history" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32665292
A later comment in reply to your accusation. And you're surprised you got it reflected back at you? Ah, maybe you didn't realise how well-deserved that was.
> > And quit whining about the guidelines
> No. And your comment is blatantly violating the guidelines.
Oh, not only violating, but blatantly violating, eh? Sez you.
> > you're violating them at least as much as anyone else
> Nothing nearly as bad as your comment.
You would think so.
I don't.
> Also, even if you believe that someone else is violating the guidelines, that doesn't justify your own violations, unless you have complete disregard for them.
Exactly. Ponder on that for a while.