Latest Ukraine/Russia Thread

[Scholar]

3 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Couldn't agree more about self-hating Christians.

Those people will concoct a conspiracy theory out of thin air to justify their hate towards progress.

They are more prevalent where I live.

For them, everything is about the "degeneration" of the West. My brain hurts when listening to them.

Yeah, sadly we will have to wait until they die from old age before this gets better. That's the hope at least.

[PurpleTree]

35 minutes ago, Scholar said:

There is always a vying for power, and thankfully, in the 21st century most of that happens through non-militaristic means. People don't realize this, but that is progress.

We don't want to go back to a time where countries steal land from each other through military force. That is something that as a world community we should deem unacceptable and punish harshly, even if countries still engage in self-interested coercive ways of manipulating the world. Instead, people  here seem to justify this regression by pointing to some sort of hypocrisy in the present. You can argue that the US shouldn't engage in various ways of coercion it does, but using that argument to excuse away the violations Russia engages in is inappropriate and whataboutism.

 

It's just the America-Bad culture. It's the deep self-hatred western societies have engrained in themselves through remnants of self-hating Christian ethics, exploited by various propaganda apparatuses.

Well America has done a lot of evil/crap too to be fair. And many don’t want to admit that either.
 

And disliking the US doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity imo. I grew up in a very non religious leftie neighbourhood in Europe and many of the adults always disliked the US especially for what they’ve done in Latin America. Supporting right wing dictatorships with kiling squads and such.

Edited Sunday at 08:34 PM by PurpleTree

[Scholar]

7 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

Well America has done a lot of evil/crap too to be fair. And many don’t want to admit that either.

Sure, america did many bad things. But it doesn't make sense to be crying about america's past atrocities when Russia right now is invading another country. They are hunting civilians for fun with drones, and happily posting these videos on social media. You can't compare the americans to the russians.

 

7 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

And disliking the US doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity imo. I grew up in a very leftie neighbourhood in Europe and many of the adults always disliked the US especially for what they’ve done in Latin America. Supporting right wing dictatorships with kiling squads and such.

Look, in my view every country engages in nazi-equivalent holocausts. What am I to tell you? Yes, humans are depraved, barbaric monsters. But in this instance, we have a sovereign people who wants to be free from russian corruption, so their children can grow up not in a country without hope and perspective, but in a country which offers them prosperity and a future. In this case, the conflict is fairly black and white. Independent of what the US was doing to position itself well, or exploit the situation, that doesn't change the clear perpetrator-victim dynamic here.

Ukraine deserves support, and Russia must be defeated if possible.

Edited Sunday at 08:38 PM by Scholar

[Nemra]

@PurpleTree, what's important is how the facts or "facts" are presented to the people.

Christians tend to do and learn from propaganda because that's what they are familiar with.

A person can know one fact about something while getting brainwashed about the rest.

[PurpleTree]

Just now, Scholar said:

Ukraine deserves support, and Russia must be defeated if possible.

That would be nice sure. 
 

 

[zazen]

If there’s one historical parallel that perfectly explains Russia’s position, it’s the Cuban Missile Crisis. The US came dangerously close to launching World War III over Soviet missiles being stationed in Cuba, just 90 miles from its borders. That threat was intolerable to the US and it responded with blockades, brinkmanship, and a refusal to allow what it saw as a direct existential threat.

Now shift the frame to Russia. NATO has crept steadily eastward for decades, ignoring Russian warnings. Ukraine is next in line which would put Moscow within striking range of NATO weapons that could obliterate Russia’s core cities in minutes. To Russia, this is its Cuban Missile Crisis, plain and simple.

And yet, the West acts as if Russia’s security concerns are irrational, dismissing them as imperialism or paranoia. If the US could justify risking nuclear war over missiles in Cuba, why can’t it understand why Russia would feel threatened by NATO troops and weapon systems stationed in Ukraine? This isn’t about justifying invasions but it’s about recognising reality. Russia is reacting the way any major power would react to hostile forces closing in on its borders - including the US.

Ukraine’s security concerns are valid, yes. But so are Russia’s. Just like Israel fears the West Bank overlooking Tel Aviv, Russia fears Ukraine hosting military systems aimed at Moscow. These fears are deeply rooted in history. Ukraine has been the corridor for multiple invasions into Russia, from Napoleon to Hitler. Geography doesn’t care about ideology.

Both sides have valid fears, and both deserve acknowledgment. But the Western refusal to see the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse - because it’s Russia on the receiving end this time - prevents any meaningful understanding of the situation. This isn’t a morality play, just geopolitics. If the West can’t see the parallels, then we’re doomed to repeat the same cycle of escalation and destruction, with catastrophic consequences.

[Scholar]

3 hours ago, zazen said:

Now shift the frame to Russia. NATO has crept steadily eastward for decades, ignoring Russian warnings. Ukraine is next in line which would put Moscow within striking range of NATO weapons that could obliterate Russia’s core cities in minutes. To Russia, this is its Cuban Missile Crisis, plain and simple.

 

This is not an honest framing. The "creeping eastward", firstly is exaggerated, secondly it is in response to Russias invasions of sovereign countries. You can't just ignore the reason why NATO acts the way it does. 

And what you say makes no sense. The US has the capacity to destroy Russia with ease, they don't need to station anything in Ukraine. Nuclear weapons are a thing, what do you think would happen as soon as someone attacked Russian cities? It would end in mutual destruction.

The reason why the Cuban Missle crisis was such a big deal was because it happened during the cold war, in a completely different historical context. Today the US, nor Russia, have no need to station nuclear weapons so close to the border of their enemies.

 

The reason why Russia invaded Ukraine is because it was losing it's influence over that country. And it should have lost influence given it was coercive. You can't complain someone will team up with the other side, when the other side will offer them economic prosperity and independence.

[Joel3102]

Why all this talk of “Russia’s backyard” without regard for what Ukraine actually desire. They desperately want to join the western sphere, via economic arrangements. And Putin wouldn’t let them, so his puppet in 2014 got overthrown by the people and he invaded. 

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, Scholar said:

Other sovereign nations being worried about Russian hostility, after they experience decades of abuse from the USSR, have the right to invite anyone to their territory including the americans.

Don't speak of right unless you're willing to fight.

[Bobby_2021]

11 hours ago, Scholar said:

But it doesn't make sense to be crying about america's past atrocities when Russia right now is invading another country.

Israel is invading another country and bombing tf out of it for their greater Israel project which is textbook imperialism. 

You refuse to accept the CIA backed coup of Ukraine govt in 2014. 

You are not against imperialism. You refuse to deny or accept when the west does that and aggressively accuse Russia which is a far weaker case.  They best way to distract attention to your own evil is to loudly accuse everyone else of it.

 

Edited Monday at 07:52 AM by Bobby_2021

[BlueOak]

Its also interesting that people forget Russia has spent as much time fighting in Africa and arming regimes this last century as anyone. Their biggest loss in Syria was the airfield and ports to project that power overseas. The Middle east have been something they've influenced for a hundred years, and now China's getting involved in Sri Lanka or building a trading empire in Uruguay. If that's not imperialism then I don't know what is.

I also feel every time a democratic coup happens people point fingers, but nobody does it in reverse. It's amusing the hypocrisy I read every day.

Edited Monday at 09:50 AM by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

@zazen
When you talk about all sides worried about their security having reasons to fight or invade 'defensively' (this term is an oxymoron), you are in essence talking about a broader or continuous war in the future. I could agree with your premise but then I am blindly following that course. Because borders will shift, they are not static, so the problem cycles back around. 

In my view you are also saying its fine to fight these wars with anyone when they are viewed through the lens of preserving the status quo of the state. Anyone can use this justification for almost anything. Yes, lots of people you hate and I also resisted said the exact same thing. 

I wish I could shake some people in this thread but I can't. I have to watch intelligent, often caring people, twist themselves in knots to

1) Recreate the definition of imperialism or ignore its aspects, like Wagner or any mercenary group in Africa or funding arms, that don't fit neatly into the current world dynamic. 
2) Don't factor in spheres of influence; shifting never ends, so they are arguing for perpetual war.
3) Will react negatively when another country does what Russia is doing but justifies it for them. - That's almost everyone here, even leo. Unless we are going to say all three bordering powers in Syria are fine just carving it up.

I have and will always criticise the use of force on a state level as a justification for invading another country. Buffer zones seem to be accepted now as the norm, okay well when Russia's western or eastern oblasts rebel I'll just respond with that also. Its so short-sighted when applied universally.
 

Edited Monday at 10:11 AM by BlueOak

[Basman]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Don't speak of right unless you're willing to fight.

That is what is happening right now. Europe, especially France and Poland, is happy to fight Russia not to mention Ukraine's resolve.

So what is your point exactly?

[Bobby_2021]

America alone operates 800 military bases across the world. 

100+ regime change operations. Israel is literally embarking on a greater Israel project to conquer even portions of Iraq, already conquered more syrian land and basically no condemnation from the "international community" on that at all.

Russia backing Assad regime to repel insurgent forces is nothing close to what the US empire is doing. You cannot fathom the scale of the imperialism. 

Russia's imperialistic ventures are puny, almost nonexistent. China is building ports for countries that need ports. What else are they do? how come even that is imperialism? None of your points are put in perspective and does not even make sense. 

2 hours ago, BlueOak said:

@zazen
When you talk about all sides worried about their security having reasons to fight or invade 'defensively' (this term is an oxymoron), you are in essence talking about a broader or continuous war in the future. I could agree with your premise but then I am blindly following that course. Because borders will shift, they are not static, so the problem cycles back around. 

In my view you are also saying its fine to fight these wars with anyone when they are viewed through the lens of preserving the status quo of the state. Anyone can use this justification for almost anything. Yes, lots of people you hate and I also resisted said the exact same thing. 

I wish I could shake some people in this thread but I can't. I have to watch intelligent, often caring people, twist themselves in knots to

1) Recreate the definition of imperialism or ignore its aspects, like Wagner or any mercenary group in Africa or funding arms, that don't fit neatly into the current world dynamic. 
2) Don't factor in spheres of influence; shifting never ends, so they are arguing for perpetual war.
3) Will react negatively when another country does what Russia is doing but justifies it for them. - That's almost everyone here, even leo. Unless we are going to say all three bordering powers in Syria are fine just carving it up.

I have and will always criticise the use of force on a state level as a justification for invading another country. Buffer zones seem to be accepted now as the norm, okay well when Russia's western or eastern oblasts rebel I'll just respond with that also. Its so short-sighted when applied universally.
 

 

[_Archangel_]

@Leo Gura speaking in concrete terms, i see Ukraine  sadly ending up being split like Korea. 
Why is that:

- Support from the EU to Ukraine can't be forever so at some point the conflict will officially end or get to very low-intensity to the border and an agreement has to be found.
- The Ukrainian governement can consider the the eastern regions and Crimea lost to Russia already, no way of getting them back.
- Russia is not able to conquer Kiev, atleast that's what the war has showed to this day.
- It's true that a significant part of Ukranians would like to stop the conflict tomorrow, but i think most of them would not accept to live under a puppet governement controlled by Putin, not after this invasion.
- I expect social chaos in Russia.  At some point Putin might fall from a window and a new Russian leader will come up saying "Actually, we got what we wanted". After all the things He said I don't see who Putin could remain in power without conquering Kiev, which seems unlikely.
- Something similiar might happen in Ukraine with more and more poeple asking to end the conflict, so some political coalition might get the ball bouncing and push harder for an agreement, opposing Zelensky.
- The US GOP and Trump pushing for an Agreement and being less hostile to Russia.

Aftermaths:


- West Ukraine won't formally join NATO or the EU but will enter solid bilateral agreements with western countries
- Annexed at first, Eest Ukraine will be declaired a Russia frendly "Indipendent Republic" and function as a bearing (including in its territory a line of land in the north, separating Russia and West Ukraine
- A civil might bust in East Ukraine, with UE friendly citizens not accepting the deal, which will be sedated by the pro Russian forces, with the help of Russia  - with will resault in a mass- migration, expecially by UE friendly Ukranians, from East to West Ukraine.
- The border between East and West Ukraine will become a demilitarized zone.

-------------

I feel the only way this is ending differently is if Russia fully commit to get Kiev, in that way Putin might remain in power and install a friedly governement in Ukraine - but this will get Russia to lose hold over the Caucasus and the middle East, as we're already seeing with the dethonement of Assad.

Any thoughts guys? Holes in my prediction?

 

Edited Monday at 04:02 PM by _Archangel_

[Scholar]

7 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Israel is invading another country and bombing tf out of it for their greater Israel project which is textbook imperialism. 

You refuse to accept the CIA backed coup of Ukraine govt in 2014. 

You are not against imperialism. You refuse to deny or accept when the west does that and aggressively accuse Russia which is a far weaker case.  They best way to distract attention to your own evil is to loudly accuse everyone else of it.

 

What does Israel have to do with any of this?

 

No I don't refuse to accept the CIA backed a coup, that never happened. 

[zazen]

On 12/16/2024 at 0:26 PM, Bobby_2021 said:

Russia backing Assad regime to repel insurgent forces is nothing close to what the US empire is doing. You cannot fathom the scale of the imperialism. 

Russia's imperialistic ventures are puny, almost nonexistent. China is building ports for countries that need ports. What else are they do? how come even that is imperialism?

When the definition of imperialism is so broad it can include many things, it loses meaning. Business, trade, selling or supplying arms? Imperialism. Therefore, anyone supplying me a good can be deemed imperialistic, including my local grocer. Also, Russia's presence in Syria is by invite from the sovereign government which is a point often missed, and that's a key distinction - influence still operates with some respect for sovereignty, imperialism undermines and obliterates it.

@BlueOak Related to above and to your comment. I see where you're coming from and that's why its important to include nuance and distinctions when describing things, and to avoid conflating actions. Common words used to describe imperialism by many dictionaries is domination and control. Russia and China don't primarily operate in that way with other nations when they trade or do business - they are largely voluntary transactional partnerships that don't dictate domestic policy which undermines the countries sovereignty. They don't impose sweeping economic controls or restructure entire economies to serve their corporations the way the IMF or World Bank does. They negotiate partnerships where the host countries retain more agency than they typically do under Western corporate imperialism. China and Russia act in a way that lacks systemic dominance and control. Influence has its downsides too, but its a far cry from imperialism.

Regarding coups. In a coup the entire state’s sovereignty is compromised by replacing the leadership. Separatist movements create localised disputes but leave the broader state intact. So supporting separatist groups with intent to fortify a buffer zone isn’t the same as orchestrating a traditional coup - because the goals and methods are fundamentally different. A coup involves the direct overthrow of a central government, replacing it with a favorable regime. Separatist support focuses on fragmenting a country by backing localized movements that seek autonomy or independence. Russia’s actions in places like Donetsk and Luhansk (Ukraine) or Abkhazia and South Ossetia (Georgia) aim to fragment rather than outright replace the central government. Its more like a proxy conflict. And by backing those Russian speaking regions or separatists, Russia maintains those buffer zones to protect its core interests in its mainland.

Regarding the 8 wars since the fall of the USSR. For the internal ones - its normal for states to fiercely oppose secession. It’s not imperialism but self-preservation. To pretend Russia’s actions to maintain its own unity are anything different ignores the universal logic of statecraft. No one blinks when Spain suppresses Catalonia’s independence movement or when the UK debates Scotland’s potential separation. Because if one region separates, it sets off a chain reaction: "If they can leave, why not us?" That’s why even democratic states fiercely oppose secession. Imagine if everyone could separate all the way to the minutest sectarian groups at which point the world is made up of micro states.

The wars external to mainland Russia, like Georgia for example, the context is this: in the spring of 2008, NATO declared its intention to bring Georgia into the alliance at the Bucharest summit. That wasn’t just a symbolic gesture but a red flag waved directly in front of Russia, signaling that a critical buffer state would soon be aligned with a military bloc historically hostile to Moscow. In Autumn of 2008 things kicked off - the year of NATO declaring its intentions. Reactive and defensive, not pro-active and imperial. Add to that the precedent of Kosovo, where the West recognized the independence of a breakaway region from Serbia. If the West could recognize Kosovo’s independence, why couldn’t Russia recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

I'll address Scholar below about the Cuban missile crises parallel and finish my point on buffer zones which we are talking about above.

@Scholar Continuing from above and to your point about the Cuban Missile crises. It was unique to its time, but geography doesn’t change. The geography of Ukraine as a buffer zone remains as relevant today as it did when Napoleon and Hitler marched through it. Nations secure buffer zones not because of what’s happening today, but because of what could happen tomorrow. Nations are prisoners of geography.

I get we’re not in a Cold War era now - but we can't ignore the context of today’s Western Alliance, which Ukraine wants to bring onto Russia’s doorstep. If we're honest, NATO and the US aren’t just some friendly neighborhood watch. The West’s modern context is one of interventionism. So if the context of the Cold War validates the US reaction to the Cuban Missile crises back then - then the context of how the Western alliance has been acting offensively today validates Russia's concern of them perching up on their border also.

You mention that the US can defeat Russia easily. I'll just say that the West has no defense against hyper-sonic missiles as of yet, but they are working on it. And to remember that the Soviet Union fell, but wasn't defeated which is a key distinction. Even Napoleon or Hitler who both had the most fierce military's in the world at the time couldn't do it - though they did inflict a lot of damage no doubt. The issue today is trying to defeat Russia on its hometurf means deleting existence lol.

Edited 20 hours ago by zazen

[zazen]

Before someone says - “but Russia undermines Ukraines sovereignty, thus it’s imperial” - context and intent matter. It can’t be context for me but not for thee. I asked chat GPT as I’m spent on this topic now and need a break but it gave some insight into the nuance:

**Chat GPT**
To answer this more clearly: Russia’s actions in Ukraine do undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty, but that doesn’t automatically make them imperialistic, because the key defining feature of imperialism isn’t merely a violation of sovereignty—it’s domination and control. Let’s break this down step by step:

1. Not All Sovereignty Violations are Imperialism

Imperialism, by its nature, is about domination—the long-term subjugation or exploitation of another nation, often for material gain or ideological control. It obliterates sovereignty entirely, turning a country into a colony, puppet state, or a resource-extraction hub.

    •    Control is Key: Imperialism requires the intent to control the political, economic, or cultural systems of the target nation. It’s about bending the nation’s existence to serve the imperial power’s interests on a systemic level.

In Ukraine, while Russia is violating its sovereignty, its goal isn’t control or domination of the entire state. Instead, its actions are primarily focused on securing its own borders by preventing Ukraine from aligning with NATO and becoming a potential base for Western military forces. While this is coercive, it doesn’t amount to imperialism because the goal is defensive, not expansive.

2. Russia Isn’t Seeking Full Domination of Ukraine

If Russia were truly imperialistic:

    •    It would aim to annex all of Ukraine or establish complete political control over Kyiv, replacing the Ukrainian government with a puppet regime aligned entirely with Moscow.

    •    It would also exploit Ukraine’s resources, labor, and economy for Russia’s own enrichment in a manner akin to historical European colonialism or even U.S.-led global economic imperialism.

Instead:

    •    Russia’s primary demand has been for Ukraine to remain neutral and outside NATO, which suggests a focus on security rather than domination.

    •    Its actions in Crimea and Donetsk/Luhansk are regionally specific, not aimed at controlling all of Ukraine. Crimea, for example, was annexed to secure Russia’s strategic naval base in Sevastopol, while support for separatists in the Donbas region serves to create a buffer zone, not a colony.

3. Sovereignty vs. Security

The conflict in Ukraine is best understood as a security war, not an imperial one:

    •    Russia’s actions undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty to a degree, but they are reactive to NATO’s expansion, which Moscow perceives as a threat to its own sovereignty and security.

    •    Russia isn’t obliterating Ukraine’s sovereignty entirely: Ukraine retains its government, its borders (outside the contested areas), and its international recognition as a sovereign state. This is vastly different from imperial domination, where sovereignty is erased or twisted to meet the needs of the imperial actor.

Think of the Cuban Missile Crisis:

    •    The U.S. violated Cuba’s sovereignty by blockading the island and threatening force to remove Soviet missiles. But the U.S. wasn’t seeking to dominate or control Cuba—it was reacting to a perceived existential threat from a hostile power. Similarly, Russia’s actions in Ukraine stem from its fear of NATO military presence on its border.

4. The Misuse of the Term Imperialism

By labeling Russia’s actions as imperialistic, we risk overextending the term to encompass any act of coercion or sovereignty violation, which dilutes its meaning. Here’s why Russia’s behavior in Ukraine falls short of imperialism:

    •    Lack of Long-Term Control: Imperialism implies sustained control over a nation’s political and economic systems. Russia’s demands focus on neutralizing NATO influence, not running Ukraine’s government or economy.

    •    Security vs. Exploitation: Russia’s motivations are security-driven, not resource-driven. It doesn’t seek to exploit Ukraine’s economy but to mitigate what it sees as an existential threat.

By comparison, the West’s historical imperialism involved colonial domination, forced labor, and systemic economic exploitation. Even today, Western economic and political dominance often subjugates nations through institutions like the IMF, which dictate terms that reshape entire economies.

5. Conclusion: Control, Not Just Sovereignty

Russia’s actions undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty, but they don’t meet the threshold of imperialism because they lack the intent to dominate and control Ukraine as a whole. The defining feature of imperialism is sustained, systemic control for material or ideological gain. Russia’s focus on security concerns and creating regional buffers distinguishes its actions from imperial domination. Mischaracterizing this conflict as imperialism obscures the nuances of the situation and hampers efforts to resolve it through negotiation.

 

[Lyubov]

At this point we should just dissolve the United Nations… The way NATO countries are currently funding this war will lead to a never ending frozen conflict. And giving in to Putin will shatter any notion of our species being beyond imperialist endeavors to take large portions of land from other countries by force.  

[Lyubov]

There is an imperialist element to Putin’s invasion, denying this is dishonest. Just listen to Putin’s interview with Tucker Carlson or the speeches he made before invading, there are several. He doesn’t believe Ukraine is a sovereign state, he sees it as a mistake made by former Soviet Union leadership. I agree that the expansion of NATO was a driving factor as well, perhaps the main factor. Putin has used two perspectives to justify the war. NATO expansion and an imperialist savior sort of perspective justified through various takes on history, geography, shared culture as well as perspectives on doubting Ukrainian ethnicity and revisionist takes as well, “Khrushchev’s mistake.” This is a fight for Ukrainian independence. Putin wanted all of Ukraine originally. He wanted to topple their current government which was formed by Ukraine nationals who toppled their own democratically elected Russian government prior. Since then the country has gone further in the direction of Ukrainian nationalism and independence, an identity separate of Russia. Putin simply doesn’t recognize that and wants to stamp out this identity which is what you may call ethnic cleansing or disenfranchisement. At the end of the day winning the war is what secures the legitimacy of Ukraine as an independent ethnic group and state. 

Edited Monday at 06:20 PM by Lyubov