Latest Ukraine/Russia Thread

[BlueOak]

17 hours ago, zazen said:

@BlueOak I haven't justified their actions, just attempted to understand them and what can possibly lead to them. As a Westerner myself, I must confront what my own corner of the planet does, as that's the only possible chance at changing outcomes I have - via the ballot box rather than the bullet. At least that's what sold to us, that we're in a Democracy.. but even then, we don't get to vote on national security or challenges to corporate domination, or are lied to about being able to.

Just look at the recent government petition ballooning up to nearly 3 million signatures for a call for a general election in the UK - after only a few months of Labour being in power. The people were lied to and Starmer went against his campaign promises. Europe is economically struggling and we are expected to fight a war for elites that are despised and getting us into this mess with their warmongering rhetoric - https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700143

The hysteria about Russia’s  imperialism is misguided. Historically, Russia isn’t the imperialist boogeyman it’s made out to be. They expanded centuries ago, just as every major power did when borders were drawn with swords and daggers. But using today’s moral standards to vilify actions that were universal in a time of conquest is unfair. By that logic, Britain, France, Spain, and the United States would also be guilty of imperialist sins that dwarf anything Russia has done. Yet we don't hear calls to roll back the US empire with it's 800 bases. Because such criticisms are selectively applied to fit the current narrative of Western hegemony.

Russia is aging rapidly with a shrinking population. Their demographics are so poor they’ve been handing out incentives to encourage people to have children. That doesn't sound like a country gearing up to expand its borders for empire. Empires expand when they’re young, dynamic, and have surplus manpower. That’s the historical record. From Rome to the British Empire to the Mongols, expansion has always been fueled by youthful demographics. No empire in history has gone on a conquering spree with a population.

Russia is already the largest country on Earth. Its borders stretch across 11 time zones, from the Baltic to the Pacific. What would they gain by expanding into areas they’d have to station men in (which they have less of) manage, and maintain? Empire building isn’t just about taking land - it’s about holding it. That requires boots on the ground, manpower at checkpoints, and resources to fund it all - which as you've pointed out they have less of with a collapsing economy. With their declining population and weakening economy Russia doesn’t have the bodies or the appetite for such a burden. They have neither the demographics nor the need.

They do have an abundance of resources and a lucrative trading relationship with Asia. Why risk all that for a dream of territorial conquest? Russia is far more focused on securing its existing borders and protecting its sphere of influence within its neighborhood. Influence is different from intervention and imperialism which is what the West largely engage in.

sWestern pundits moralize about Russia’s historical expansions while conveniently ignoring their own nations colonial rampages. The British Empire didn’t just expand - it plundered, enslaved, and subjugated. The United States annexed half of Mexico and toppled governments from Guatemala to Iraq. Yet somehow, only Russia’s actions are put under the microscope.

The context today is that we live in a world of nation states with largely settled borders. Expanding territory today isn’t just taboo - it’s counterproductive. Russia knows this. They’re not marching westward in some Tsarist fantasy. They’re protecting their interests in regions like Crimea and Donbass, areas tied to their security and identity. These are defensive, not imperialist, actions - driven by NATO’s provocations, not a desire for global domination.

If anything, the real question isn’t why Russia is acting as it does - it’s why the West refuses to see the obvious. A shrinking, aging country with no demographic fuel for expansion, already sitting on more resources than it can use, has no logical reason to embark on imperialist conquests. The caricature of Russia as a marauding empire is a propaganda tool, designed to justify the endless militarization of NATO and deflect attention from Western failures.

Russia has no need to expand. They’re not the ones projecting military power across the globe - they’re securing their own backyard. And while Western powers cry imperialism, they might want to take a look in the mirror. If Russia’s actions are imperialist, then what are the United State's actions? 

Russia has had 8 wars to establish control over former USSR territories; if that isn't expansion, tell me what is?
I go by people's actions more than their words, of which there have also been plenty of threats from Spain to Alaska.

Russia projects military power across the globe. That's what most wars we all hate America getting into are all about—fighting Russia-influenced or backed regimes.

Why is there a need for me to tell you America is psychopathic when seen in an expanded context? Is this for a wider audience, or are you trying to genuinely convince me of this? Because you can stop there. China, America, Russia, the UK and France every world power acts as if the only way to exist in the world is to club the other guy. As i've said many times Russia has done plenty of meddling in nations, they just do it with guns, training, special forces, assassinations, intelligence data, and money, rather than big pompous nation-building exercises that people watch on TV and get annoyed about (mostly, unless Russia is hitting an underdeveloped African nation in turmoil or they just want to eradicate population centers aka gassing Syrian rebels, Bombing Chechen fighters or Drone striking Ukrainian cities).

The real question is why do countries act like they do, a better question than that is how to change it
The answer to your question i've said 5 times now at least. People need to villainize the other side to fight them. Which is what most of the energy of these threads are focused on.

Their bad we are good. I could just write that in place of most of these posts, then my various attempts to get people to realise the futility of that. That's 90% of your post. These guys were bad, so that justified what we do next. This is a terrible place of reasoning to be in.

There are a multitude of reasons for this war, but one you point out is to shrink their border with NATO so they can more easily guard it, while having a shrinking population. Actually, many empires try one last push before they sputter out, Mongols, the British, the Americans, Rome, Greeks, and the Russians—it happened all through history. In the wider context, this war is the acceleration of Russia's shrinking.

It obviously has the appetite for such a burden because it's doing it right now.

If you are going to say Russia's actions are defensive, then i'll say Eastern Europe's actions are defensive and ergo their allies. Invading another country is not defensive, I don't care how you spin it.

Edited 4 hours ago by BlueOak

[Bobby_2021]

20 hours ago, zazen said:

The hysteria about Russia’s  imperialism is misguided

Yes.

21 hours ago, zazen said:

By isolating one dramatic event and erasing the chain of provocations, the narrative gets flipped.

This. 

Everything happens in a vaccum. That's the only way they get to justify their atrocities.

20 hours ago, zazen said:

shrinking, aging country with no demographic fuel for expansion, already sitting on more resources than it can use, has no logical reason to embark on imperialist conquests.

Russia wanting more land has to be the biggest joke of all.