Latest Ukraine/Russia Thread

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, BlueOak said:

1) Without replying USA to me. How can you say Russia isn't imperialist when it has fought 8 wars to rebuild and reconquer former USSR territories?

Russia doesn't have to be imperialist just because it fights some wars around its borders where many Russian people live.

It's not like Russia is trying to conquer Poland or Kazakhstan. Russia is fighting for geopolitical influence in its own sphere of the world where is has been historically dominant. Russia is trying to stop Western encroachment into its sphere.

You can call it wrong, but it's not really imperial. At least not yet.

Edited Sunday at 02:05 AM by Leo Gura

[Bobby_2021]

On 12/12/2024 at 5:59 PM, Scholar said:

 

 

 

I know this Jake guy and I am not going to watch this video, but I know the point he is going to make.

"NATO expansion is a lie" 

"Here are the main reasons why NATO is bigger than ever."

You see the irony don't you. It does not matter the reasons for which NATO expanded. NATO did expand. That is all that matters. How can you say that NATO expansion is a lie? NATO is bigger than ever. 

Now let's talk about the reasons.

"The poor ex-soviet states was crying to include them in NATO and NATO out of the goodness of their hearts included them in NATO for security and protection."

See the problem is that it does respect the geopolitical reality that Russians have to deal with. He is spinning NATO as an altruistic organization that works to promote security and peace. In reality they work to expand the geopolitical influence of the USA even to a few minutes from Moscow itself. And you think Russians are supposed to simply accept their fate? 

Evey talk about Ukraine joining NATO should start with the CIA orchestrated violent coup of the democratically elected leader of Ukraine in 2014. This is where the whole conversation should start so that things are put in the right perspective. None of these pro-western influencers talk about this. 
US is the master of regime change operation against socialist states, and they show no regard to their sovereignty, over including invading them.

So NATO in Ukraine is an avenue of for the neoliberal influence of US to spill over to Kiev and a few minutes from Putin's chair itself. OF course Russians will have an issue with this. 

Quote

They are also the invading force, which in a symmetrical war will yield more causalities on the side of the attacker.

Nothing about this war is symmetrical. That is the point. Russians outnumber Ukrainian side with artillery and tanks, ammunition, command, tactics and manpower.   

18 hours ago, El Zapato said:

That is why I agree with the actions that Biden has undertaken thus far.  Putin does not deserve any sort of victory.

Putin doesn't need your permission. He will take what he wants out of sheer force. 

Biden's actions (or whoever calling the shots) only increases the body count on both sides. Which I understand is a win for the west since they want these people to fight and die for neoliberal interests. 

 

Edited Sunday at 05:04 AM by Bobby_2021

[Bobby_2021]

Hi Europeans get ready to work more hours, say goodbye to free healthcare, pensions and pay even more in taxes to fight boogeyman Russia. Hope your support for Ukraine was worth it.  

[El Zapato]

16 hours ago, zazen said:

@Scholar Being critical of US foreign policy isn't being a commie or hating on America as a whole, or its people.  That's a lazy cop out similar to Zionists claiming someone to be a anti-semite for being critical of Israel's actions. You’re being emotional and condescending towards me and for example Raze in another thread calling him a bane on existence and to be removed from the forum so don’t mind me being snappy back. Not as a natural reflex but to reflect back what you put out.

You’re the one being irrational and triggered by criticism of the Western narrative that seems to have seeped deep into your marrow.  The purpose of highlighting the West's behavior is to highlight bias and hypocrisies, and to be relatable if one is unable to place oneself in the shoes of another - in this case Russia. Because if you can put yourself in Russia's shoes, you would realise that no nation would allow or entertain the possibility of antagonistic players to put bases and point missiles towards you from a neighboring country - US wouldn't accept Russia or China doing that in Mexico.

The Cuban Missile Crisis is a perfect example of how no nation, especially a major power, tolerates the placement of antagonistic military assets near its borders. The US reacted and came dangerously close to nuclear war to prevent what it perceived as an existential threat. Their response wasn’t ideological but strategic and about national security.

I know of Russia's barbarity and its imperial history, but that's the point - it was that way in the past some decades ago now since the Soviet Union fell and has become a different entity today. You invoke the Soviet Union’s legacy to frame modern Russia as inherently imperialistic and ideologically aggressive. If Russia is to be judged for its Soviet past, the US must also be judged for its record of interventionism, both past and present that is ongoing today. Over the past 20–30 years, the US surpasses modern Russia in terms of the scale and destructiveness of its actions. 

The behavior attributed to the Soviet Union - global military interventions, regime changes, ideological imposition - fits the US and its allies more closely in the modern era. The very lens you use to demonize Russia more accurately describes the US's actions in the present moment. You’re projecting the sins of modern imperialism onto Russia while excusing or downplaying the fact that the US is the empire dominating the globe today. You in fact moralise about how this is fine as it's the natural hegemon and beneficial for the world, then accuse me of moralising.

Hegemony isn’t natural or a one time purchase - it’s a subscription that requires plenty of upkeep in order to maintain - and yes, that includes power plays and coercion - something you downplay and seem to illogically think smaller players do instead. Coercion implies you have the strength to be coercive in the first place. If you are weak, you are are not feared enough to be able to be coercive in the first place.  Can a baby coerce you as an adult? 

Maybe Russia wouldn't have to worry about NATO being on its border if it actually was what it said it was ie defensive. Instead, the whole world  just witnessed it along with the US empire act imperialistically across the globe for the past decades. If Eastern Europe fears Russia behaving as it did in its past Soviet era decades ago - since which it has changed - why shouldn't Russia fear the Western alliance behaving aggressively with far more recent proof of it behaving so across the planet up to today. It’s entirely rational for Russia to distrust NATO’s intentions. If an alliance that claims to be defensive behaves offensively, why would any rational actor welcome its presence on their border?

You started a thread with Wesley Clark going in on Mearshimer realist fan boys so you may appreciate him describing how there has been a hijacking of US foreign policy by vested interests:

''The purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments, not to deter conflict'' referring to their plan to destabilize the Middle East. The difference today is that most nations go to war out of necessity. The US seems to end wars in order to start the next one. This is my critique of Mearsheimer also (which you falsely believe me to be a realist fanboy of when in fact I don't belong to any ideological camp) - he wants to end the war with Russia to focus efforts on containing China next.

That is the problem...to equate Russia with Putin is to misplace the responsibility.  Putin is a throwback with visions of glory.  Internally, he might be a sad creature thus he belongs in a cage not on the world stage. The same is true of Agent Orange.  The left in the U.S. has benign intent, The right in most of the world acts as if they are a different species...which they are. Nature is their enemy, and it has been planning their demise since their inception.

[BlueOak]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Russia doesn't have to be imperialist just because it fights some wars around its borders where many Russian people live.

It's not like Russia is trying to conquer Poland or Kazakhstan. Russia is fighting for geopolitical influence in its own sphere of the world where is has been historically dominant. Russia is trying to stop Western encroachment into its sphere.

You can call it wrong, but it's not really imperial. At least not yet.

That's all anyone ever does. Extend their sphere of influence outward until they can't anymore. 

All you are saying to me is the proximity makes it less imperialist. Russia is an empire of cultures and provinces, and its trying to extend it. Thus the problem will always be 'close' to hand and never ending.

I think England invading ireland or scotland for example was extremely imperialist, and that distance is closer than what we are talking about.

It makes little odds where in the world someone is fighting to conquer, only that they are doing it for the people involved. Once Russia gets X country they will push for Y just like everyone else does, its what they've been doing since the 90s and centuries before that. So let's be generous and say 20 years go by, Russia absorbs another culture just like @Scholar says, then considers the land 'Russian' and keeps going again.

I think the problem I have with Han and Muscovite cultures specifically is they like to absorb other cultures into themselves (or eradicate 'problematic' cultures in the latter case), thus creating a never-ending problem.

The Definition of Imperialism might help:

Imperialism is the maintaining and extending of power over foreign nations, particularly through expansionism, employing both hard power (military and economic power) and soft power (diplomatic power and cultural imperialism). Imperialism focuses on establishing or maintaining hegemony and a more or less formal empire.[3][4][5] While related to the concept of colonialism, imperialism is a distinct concept that can apply to other forms of expansion and many forms of government.[6]

Edited Sunday at 10:17 AM by BlueOak

[zazen]

12 hours ago, BlueOak said:

1) Without replying USA to me. How can you say Russia isn't imperialist when it has fought 8 wars to rebuild and reconquer former USSR territories?

2) Your mind believes that wars with neighbours over land or influencing spheres are more morally justified than wars over oil or trade. Why?

@zazen
 

I think the main issue is mischaracterising Russia as an imperialist power, which risks misdiagnosing the problem, which results in wrong solutions that may be disastrous. 

Being a superpower or a great power doesn’t inherently mean being an imperial power - the distinction is in how a nation uses its power and the intent, scope and context behind its actions. Superpowers naturally exert influence and occasionally engage in intervention, but not all superpowers pursue imperialism. There’s also a blurry grey area between intervention and imperialism. A distinction can be made between influence, intervention and imperial - the actions of which often get lumped together including their negative associations.

Influence is about persuasion and follows power like a shadow we can’t escape. Intervention is actively intervening, usually defensively or reactively. Imperialism is proactive domination and exploitation for material gain or the preservation of dominance. It’s often justified by ideology, carried out through aggression or coercion, and its focus on far off lands reveals motivations rooted in greed rather than security.

If a power is truly imperial - driven by greed, resource extraction, and ideological dominance - then it must be stopped by all means necessary. But Russia’s actions don’t fit that mold so neatly.

1) How can you say Russia isn’t imperialist when it has fought 8 wars to rebuild and reconquer former USSR territories?

With the above in mind, imperialism in Russia’s context dilutes the meaning of the word. If imperialism as it’s historically understood is about projecting dominance far from home, driven by greed and exploitation then Russia isn’t engaged in it. At least not yet as Leo mentioned. What Russia’s done in its post-Soviet era is nothing like the imperialism it did engage in, in the past.

It hasn’t annexed territories for wealth or power disconnected from its own survival. It’s acted in its immediate neighborhood where the stakes are existential, not imperial. Those wars happened or are happening on Russia’s doorstep, in regions that have served as invasion routes for centuries - from Napoleon to Hitler. Which is why Ukraine is Russia’s red line - half of invasions launched from there. Ukraine, Georgia, Transnistria aren’t exotic conquests but buffer zones critical to its integrity. Likewise with Chechnya or separatists which risk fragmenting the country.

It’s definetely messy and coercive, but not imperial in the sense that its actions are primarily dominance driven for expansion and exploitation. It’s less about conquest and more about security. Russia is already the most resource rich nation on earth with the largest land mass spanning multiple time zones and with a shrinking population making it harder to defend. Its size is exactly why it’s vulnerable as there are many countries it can be encircled from or contained by from the West. Strategically, it wouldn’t want to expand to have even larger borders to protect with even less men. Historically, empires expand when they have the demographic dividend for it.

Russia’s actions in places like Chechnya or Georgia underscore the point that these conflicts are not imperialist, because they’re not motivated by the kind of greed or resource exploitation that defines imperialism. If Russia’s intent were to build an empire for profit, why would it invest immense resources into wars in regions that offer no significant economic return? Chechnya isn’t a treasure trove of resources, and Georgia isn’t a goldmine for exploitation. 

2) Your mind believes that wars with neighbors over land or influencing spheres are more morally justified than wars over oil or trade. Why?

I’m not justifying anything brother, just understanding the situation.

Wars over land and influence often come from a primal need to secure survival, while wars over oil or trade are more about greed and domination. Losing control over a neighboring territory can mean the difference between safety and invasion, or stability and chaos. Russia’s conflicts with its neighbors aren’t about expanding a global empire, they’re about not being surrounded by adversaries. There’s a visceral, defensive logic to that. We don’t have to agree with it, but it’s understandable.

When wars are fought thousands of miles from home over resources or trade routes, the justification gets thinner. Those wars don’t protect the homeland, they feed the machine. They’re not about survival but about greed and maintaining dominance far beyond what’s needed for security.They’re inherently expansionist and imperial. Wars over land and spheres are ugly, yes. But at their core, they’re about not losing buffer zones for survival whilst wars over oil and trade is taking more than ever needed in the first place.

China has shown that it’s possible to be a regional hegemon without necessarily being imperialistic. Circling back to the beginning of the comment - being a superpower or a great power doesn’t inherently mean being an imperial one.

Russia’s actions can be called imperialistic once they shift significantly beyond its natural buffer zones to places like Scandinavia, the Baltics, or Eastern NATO countries such as Poland. Intervening in these regions, far removed from any genuine threat to its core security needs, would cross the line from defensive posturing into true imperial aggression. Until then, we need to be wary of Western propaganda distorting the reality of the situation and dismissing Russia’s security concerns. The stakes are too high to not see the situation with clarity.

 

***

Just saw your comment after I posted this. That’s an issue I was also having with the definition of imperialism - it was too broad to be used - I think distinctions between influence, intervention and imperialism bring more clarity.

Including soft power and cultural influence broadens the term to the point where any great power’s actions could be labeled imperialistic. It can make the definition less precise and risks equating all geopolitical influence with imperialism.

Otherwise, we could say the West and the US has been extremely imperialistic in this regard as people even in the remotest places drink Coca Cola, wear jeans and listen to Taylor Swift.

Edited Sunday at 11:40 AM by zazen

[BlueOak]

@zazen

While I agree clarification is helpful, imperialism only needs clarification because its problematic for the current direction the world is moving in, and so people want more room to manoeuvre their latest justifications for violence. In previous centuries when other powers were judged, that definition was fit for purpose. Do you think 1,000 years from now people won't be looking back at it all as barbaric just the same?

You are disconnecting things that are naturally connected.

Survival leads to security, which leads to wealth and eventually power. Its all one and the same. There is nothing keeping that power in check but other powers. No moral structure which cannot be bent, twisted, or ignored in the pursuit of it. Because all it takes is any one of millions of decisions, from millions of people enacted in policy at the expense of another country or local cultures, building up over time to create that imbalance. Russia frequently takes from its poorer minorities and gives to the Muscovite regions as an example, or just takes over their land ownership.

As well as providing security or a buffer, the Ukranian regions are rich in food, ports and resources; where Turkey sits, it becomes the center of the world in a non-globalised reality, and Russia wants direct access or eventually control over much of it. It also wants manpower, because it lacks it and shorter more defensible borders to guard along the coasts and mountain ranges.

A war is a war.
Defence can be argued to be anything and is frequently argued by those you hate to be why they do what they do. Its been used as the justification for most wars for millennia.

So if Europe go to war with Russia over them meddling in Poland and Romania I’ll turn around to you and say Europe is defending its eastern flank from Russia overthrowing their governments.

Then people will argue whose sphere it is in. If Russia owns Ukraine you or someone with your view will argue its on their doorstep, and thus justified. 

Over any length of time where borders or spheres shift, it's all nonsensical, and I really wish that could be agreed upon, but we're still having to go over this, with you or others threading needles to tell me violence on any large scale has any justification whatsoever. People the world over need to handle their own insecurities and resource or security challenges via cooperation and not force. - That means every country. No ifs buts or why nots. It means everyone reading this eats their hatred of the other and does what they can to stop it.

China keep expanding their borders, BTW, eradicating problematic cultures or absorbing them. I think it was you who asked me for a list of Chinese wars or atrocities last time? I can list them here if that helps. They have African ambitions for resources, and in the South China Sea, they want to replace the dollar in a trading empire. It’s the same pattern that any power wants to emulate until they meet a force or resistance to it.

Edited Sunday at 12:16 PM by BlueOak

[Scholar]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Russia doesn't have to be imperialist just because it fights some wars around its borders where many Russian people live.

It's not like Russia is trying to conquer Poland or Kazakhstan. Russia is fighting for geopolitical influence in its own sphere of the world where is has been historically dominant. Russia is trying to stop Western encroachment into its sphere.

You can call it wrong, but it's not really imperial. At least not yet.

What do you think imperialism means? If you invade countries to change their regimes and literally conquer their lands, that's imperialism.

 

But more profoundly, Russia fundamentally is imperialistic in it's structure. Do you really know so little about how Russian politics works, and has worked for centuries?

Let me ask you this: If Germany was going to invade poland, france and half of europe again to reestablish the Third Reich, would that be a form of imperialism in your eyes?

Edited Sunday at 12:42 PM by Scholar

[Bobby_2021]

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

Let me ask you this: If Germany was going to invade poland, france and half of europe again to reestablish the Third Reich, would that be a form of imperialism in your eyes?

Russia is invading Ukraine, not to reestablish USSR. Their intentions are not imperialistic in nature. 

Edited Sunday at 02:26 PM by Bobby_2021

[Scholar]

6 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Russia is invading Ukraine, not to reestablish USSR. Their intentions are not imperialistic in nature. 

It doesn't matter what they are doing. If germany invaded polish territory because in the past it was part of it's empire, then that is imperialism.

And we aren't talking about just Ukraine, history didn't start in 2014. Are you unaware of all the invasions Russia engaged in since Putin became dictator? Why do you think Putin views the fall of the Soviet Union as the greatest tragedy in history? You don't think that has anything to do with why he wants to bring past Russian-Empire nations back into Russian influence?

 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

What do you think imperialism means? If you invade countries to change their regimes and literally conquer their lands, that's imperialism.

 

But more profoundly, Russia fundamentally is imperialistic in it's structure. Do you really know so little about how Russian politics works, and has worked for centuries?

Let me ask you this: If Germany was going to invade poland, france and half of europe again to reestablish the Third Reich, would that be a form of imperialism in your eyes?

Culturally, Ukraine is deeply intertwined with Russia. Don't act like this is Russia conquering some foreign land or people.

That's the whole reason why Putin doesn't want to just cede Ukraine to the West. Because Ukraine is so connected to Russian culture and identity. Why would Putin allow what is essential Russia to get into the hands of Westerners from across the globe?

If you think this is analogous to conquering some foreign people you just don't understand Russian culture. Ukraine is not like invading Germany. Ukraine is Russia, basically. A piece of Russia that broke off.

Edited Sunday at 03:21 PM by Leo Gura

[Scholar]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Culturally, Ukraine is deeply intertwined with Russia. Don't act like this is Russia conquering some foreign land or people.

Russia has not only invaded Ukraine. And no, the Ukrainian people have a distinct identity from the Russians, they have sought independence for centuries. Why do you think the Russians engaged in genocide and ethnic cleansings, starving them, deporting them and so forth to replace them with native russians?

Even all the ethnic groups in Russia are not "deeply interwined" with Russia, they largely still view Russia as an imperialist force. The moscovites to them are imperialists.

 

And by the way, this is how Hitler argued too. He viewed Austria and Switzerland as indistinct from Germany. That is precisely what an imperialist mindset is. You justify your imperial ambitions with various historical or ethnic claims.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Why would Putin allow what is essential Russia to get into the hands of Westerners from across the globe?

Because they are their own sovereign people living in their own sovereign country, meaning they should have the right to choose their own destiny? 

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Scholar said:

And no, the Ukrainian people have a distinct identity from the Russians, they have sought independence for centuries.

So what. Texans have a distict identity. Doesn't mean you would let them form their own nation.

Quote

And by the way, this is how Hitler argued too. He viewed Austria and Switzerland as indistinct from Germany.

And in some sense that is valid. Since the world doesn't come divided by borders, they have to be invented through war.

The problem with Hitler was not his aims with regard to Austria and Hungary, but his invasion of totally different cultures like France, Britain, Russia, Poland, Ukraine, etc.

Basically you can see these differences by looking at langauge groups. Those are the "natural" borders between peoples. Ukraine is a Slavic land.

9 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

Because they are their own sovereign people living in their own sovereign country, meaning they should have the right to choose their own destiny? 

That's just your construction. Putin has a different construction.

Edited Sunday at 03:30 PM by Leo Gura

[Husseinisdoingfine]

22 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's just your construction. Putin has a different construction.

Do you view this as a culture war between East and West to be the real reason for this invasion, or is it geopolitical, military and strategic? 

For example, security concerns over NATO, etc... 

Which totally backfired, as Finland is now in NATO. 

Maybe it was economic, and because Ukraine is an integral part of Russian cultural sphere, Putin didn't want Ukraine to be part of the EU Economic bloc. So that's why it had less of an issue with Finland joining NATO and EU, because Finland isn't a slavic country connected to Russia. (too connected, Finland used to be part of the Russian empire)

Edited Sunday at 03:48 PM by Husseinisdoingfine

[Leo Gura]

To really understand this situation it's easy, you just gotta look at it from Putin's POV:

Why the fuck would I allow Slavic Ukraine -- the birthplace of Russia -- to fall into Western Yankee hands? What shit is this?! Fuck these Yankee interlopers.

That's what this war is about.

Yankees are too ignorant of Russian culture and history to understand any of this. It's as if Texas fell into Chinese hands. That's the closest analogy.

Edited Sunday at 03:42 PM by Leo Gura

[Scholar]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

So what. Texans have a distict identity. Doesn't mean you would let them form their own nation.

I actually can't believe you are making these arguments. You can't think of any reason why these things are fundamentally different? Both in essence and historically speaking?

 

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

And in some sense that is valid. Since the world doesn't come divided by borders, they have to be invented through war.

The problem with Hitler was not his aims with regard to Austria and Hungary, but his invasion of totally different cultures like France, Britain, Russia, Poland, Ukraine, etc.

Basically you can see these differences by looking at langauge groups. Those are the "natural" borders between peoples. Ukraine is a Slavic land.

No, the problem was that he invaded sovereign nations. You are actually propagandized, lol.

Ah, because Ukraine is slavic land, all Slavic nations have a claim to it? You realize Moscow once belonged to Poland? Ukraine also once belonged to Poland. Maybe Poland should invade Russia and Ukraine to get it's historical lands back, given it is the same slavic culture.

This is just excuse making for actual imperialism, I can't believe you are making these arguments.

 

Russia itself gave Ukraine and every other sovient nation the choice to either remain in their union or leave it. They decided to leave, and Russia ACCEPTED this.

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

To really understand this situation it's really easy, you just gotta look at it from Putin's POV:

Why the fuck would I allow Slavic Ukraine -- the birthplace of Russia -- to fall into Western Yankee hands? What shit is this?!

Everyone understands this perspective. The point is, it is imperialist. And of course western nations, and the whole world, ought to fight for the sovereignty of nations. 

This relativism you engage in is irrelevant to the discussion.

Edited Sunday at 03:40 PM by Scholar

[Scholar]

Given that Kiev is the founder of "Russian" culture and society, maybe Ukraine should invade Russia to get it's vassal in order? Why exactly is it that Ukraine belongs to Russia, and not the other way around?

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Scholar said:

The point is, it is imperialist.

Call it whatever hippie label you want. In the end nations are determined by a gun to your face, not your hippie Yankee logic.

The gall of Americans to complain about imperialism.

Edited Sunday at 03:45 PM by Leo Gura