Latest Ukraine/Russia Thread

[zazen]

42 minutes ago, Scholar said:

 

That's a great video. No doubt the Eastern front want to protect themselves after the historical record - the issue is Russia can't risk anything on its border that can threaten Moscow and Russia itself either. Grid lock.

[Scholar]

37 minutes ago, zazen said:

That's a great video. No doubt the Eastern front want to protect themselves after the historical record - the issue is Russia can't risk anything on its border that can threaten Moscow and Russia itself either. Grid lock.

Even if this was true, the solution to this it the destruction of Russia, of course. Given that it is the aggressive invading force.

If there truly is an existential, necessitated conflict here, there is only one moral way of resolving it. And in practice, this is how you sadly have to deal with the Russians. They do not understanding anything but power and violence. And so, that's exactly what you need to give them.

 

But of course this is not the reality. Russia doesn't actually have to fear anything from Nato, because if Russia simply did it's thing, nobody would care about that backwater country, because they are geopolitically utterly irrelevant.

The only reason why Russia ever had any historical and geopolitical relevance was because of it's imperialistic ambitions. That is the only way for it to sustain it's position of power. Thankfully modernity has transcended such motivations as justifications for blantant violations of state-integrity. Not even the US, in it's imperial functions, deems it justified to annex territory.

 

But all of this is nonsensical. The russians themselves don't think the west is a threat, Putin thinks the west is literally falling, that democracy is inherently doomed to fail. They were wrong, because there are not enough people like you around, not yet, to allow these regimes to conduct themselves in the way they please.

What is happening here has nothing to do with the actual security of Russia. There are plenty of nations that have been plenty of antagonistic in the past that are able to live in perfectly vulnerable, peaceful ways with the rest of the world. Putin has inherently imperialistic aspirations that are ideologically motivated, the second reason is regime security.

 

Either way, a senseless, unwinnable war is not the solution for Russia. Any rational state actor would realize this. They lost Syria, they might lose Africa, and much more if this conflict continues.

 

 

If you want to look at this from a position of realism, as you pretend to do, then you have to recognize that for Russia to maintain it's position of power as it did in the past, it has to do so in the most vile, imperialistic ways possible. That's the only way it could compete with the US. But the US is not an artificial, imperialistic hegemon. The US is geopolitically positioned to be the, or part of, the hegemony of the world. They don't need to annex Mexico and Canada to be the prominent world power. They have the natural position in this world power hierarchy, and as such they should be the hegemon of the world.

Because they don't need to enslave half a continent under their regime to even participate in the competition for hegemony. So, from a realist perspective, the only sensible solution is to destroy Russias ambition as an unnatural (meaning, their default position does not lend itself to hegemony at all) imperial force, the same as we did to France, UK, Germany and any other nation that attempted to do so.

You don't want to lose power, but that's what it has to be, because your little shit country in the corner of the world should be utterly meaningless in the transpiring of world history. But you don't want that to be the case, so of course you are willing to dominate half the world, having to maintain your power through barbarism, because you have never had the proper, geopolitical fate to be what you seek to be.

 

This is the rule from realism that you should abide by: The weaker you are, the more violent and oppressive you have to be if you want to be the hegemony, because you do not hold the natural position of hegemony. The natural position of hegemony, naturally goes to the one who is strong, so to maintain your power, you must constantly and violently oppress those who would be more powerful than you, if you simply allowed them to be.

This is why the US can afford to act from a non-coercive position geopolitical speaking, which benefits not only the US, but all nations in the world. They have the natural hegemon, so they don't need to suppress anyone in violent and oppressive ways to maintain their own position of power.

So, from a realist position, the US should maintain it's power, and suppress weak nations like Russia who have false aspirations of competing for hegemony.

Edited Thursday at 01:54 PM by Scholar

[zazen]

On 12/12/2024 at 1:37 PM, Scholar said:

Even if this was true, the solution to this it the destruction of Russia, of course. Given that it is the aggressive invading force.

If there truly is an existential, necessitated conflict here, there is only one moral way of resolving it. And in practice, this is how you sadly have to deal with the Russians. They do not understanding anything but power and violence. And so, that's exactly what you need to give them.

You can only think the destruction of Russia is a viable solution if you also happen to think it's a backwater country that is geopolitically irrelevant - as you've stated. Brinkmanship with a country known to have the most nuclear warheads and second most powerful military (according to GFP's latest ranking) is more suicidal and reckless, rather than a solution.

This same backwater country just used a intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) - the Oreshnik - which I don't think the West has any capability of even neutralizing or intercepting. and was demonstrated as a warning to stop escalating. Russia's also the most resource rich nation on earth which used to supply almost half of EU's gas and a third of its oil. It just signed a $13b a year deal with India yesterday - one of its largest, cementing its ties and footprint in Asia where the most growth is going to take place in the next century.

Russia has acted aggressively within its sphere of influence, but the US has engaged in imperialistic wars, regime changes, and economic coercion (sanctions) across the globe. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria to name a few - the US has left a trail of destruction far beyond its borders, even within its own backyard in Latin america. If power and violence are the currency of international relations, it’s the US that has minted the most.

On 12/12/2024 at 1:37 PM, Scholar said:

The only reason why Russia ever had any historical and geopolitical relevance was because of its imperialistic ambitions. That is the only way for it to sustain its position of power. Thankfully modernity has transcended such motivations as justifications for blantant violations of state-integrity. Not even the US, in its imperial functions, deems it justified to annex territory.

Russia hasn’t acted imperialistically in decades - not in the sense of unprovoked conquests or global domination. Its actions in Ukraine and Georgia are aggressive and unlawful, but are rooted in strategic concerns about NATO encroachment and preserving buffer zones. That's a far cry from the US whose global dominance rests on economic and military imperialism to remain relevant via coercing the use of the petro dollar.

The US hasn’t transcended the need to violate the sovereignty of many states through its interventionist foreign policy.

As you said ''This is why the US can afford to act from a non-coercive position geopolitical speaking, which benefits not only the US, but all nations in the world.'' Just ask the Middle East if they think the US has acted non-coercively or the ICC who have been threatened for investigating Israel and Bibi.

On 12/12/2024 at 1:37 PM, Scholar said:

The russians themselves don't think the west is a threat, Putin thinks the west is literally falling, that democracy is inherently doomed to fail. They were wrong, because there are not enough people like you around, not yet, to allow these regimes to conduct themselves in the way they please.

What is happening here has nothing to do with the actual security of Russia. There are plenty of nations that have been plenty of antagonistic in the past that are able to live in perfectly vulnerable, peaceful ways with the rest of the world. Putin has inherently imperialistic aspirations that are ideologically motivated, the second reason is regime security.

You can think society is failing socially, but acknowledge the might of the state and military. Russia’s actions aren't driven solely by the principle of NATO expansion but by specific strategic threats posed by NATO's proximity to its core security interests. The issue isn’t NATO expansion in itself but NATO’s expansion to Russia’s borders, where it creates a direct threat to Russian security. The context of proximity, population and pathways matters.

Proximity is having missiles stationed close enough to strike Russia’s core cities and centers, mainly Moscow.  NATO’s existence doesn't provoke Russia, its presence within a proximity that threatens key Russian assets does - which is from Ukraine. Population is having enough manpower to mobilize forces and support operations from. Pathway is having a flat and easy terrain to make your way into Russian territory from. Besides any cultural rhetoric Russia may use to justify needing Ukraine to be neutral or ''on side'', the above all make NATO in Ukraine a strategic threat compared to other NATO members bordering it such as in the Baltics or recently Finland.

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have bordered Russia since 2004, and Finland joined NATO in 2023. Yet, Russia never invaded those countries because they don’t post a threat in the way even the potential of NATO in Ukraine does. They aren't threatening if seen through the lens of proximity, population or a clear pathway to mobilize troops through and towards Russian assets.

Many antagonistic nations have geographic boundaries to help maintain the peace, or aren't being antagonistic to the level the West often frames China and Russia. Plenty of nations aren't nuclear powers locked in a tense rivalry with the world’s most expansive military alliance, nor do they face an existential threat from missile systems minutes from their capitals.

Related to this, I'm critical of and against Israels occupation but still recognise their security concerns are valid. The West Bank's high ground overlooking Tel Aviv offers a direct line of sight, making it a strategic threat if any future Palestinian state with its own military were allowed to exist there. Likewise, the existence of a threat to Moscow at the Ukraine border is equally valid.

On 12/12/2024 at 1:37 PM, Scholar said:

If you want to look at this from a position of realism, as you pretend to do, then you have to recognize that for Russia to maintain it's position of power as it did in the past, it has to do so in the most vile, imperialistic ways possible. That's the only way it could compete with the US. But the US is not an artificial, imperialistic hegemon. The US is geopolitically positioned to be the, or part of, the hegemony of the world. They don't need to annex Mexico and Canada to be the prominent world power. They have the natural position in this world power hierarchy, and as such they should be the hegemon of the world.

Because they don't need to enslave half a continent under their regime to even participate in the competition for hegemony. So, from a realist perspective, the only sensible solution is to destroy Russias ambition as an unnatural (meaning, their default position does not lend itself to hegemony at all) imperial force, the same as we did to France, UK, Germany and any other nation that attempted to do so.

You don't want to lose power, but that's what it has to be, because your little shit country in the corner of the world should be utterly meaningless in the transpiring of world history. But you don't want that to be the case, so of course you are willing to dominate half the world, having to maintain your power through barbarism, because you have never had the proper, geopolitical fate to be what you seek to be.

And the US doesn't maintain it's position violently and artificially? That must be why it needs over 800 bases across the world.

The US is blessed geographically and it's unique culture and dynamism has definitely propelled it to be where it is. But it also maintains its dominance through military interventions, economic coercion, and control of global institutions. The idea that the US operates "non-coercively" is contradicted by history.

If anything, it seems that the US is trying to maintain its power through violent means against rising powers in the East. In the past we could have a uni-polar hegemonic power, because the power to destroy the world many times over didn't exist. But in a world with multiple powers with enough power to destroy the world with advanced weaponry - there's no choice but to be multi-polar and share power with others, rather than have power over others. Otherwise as the current hegemon starts to inevitably be challenged, as always happens in history - it will be apocalyptic if it arrogantly views those rising as simply backwater countries who need to get checked into position.

Western exceptionalism and hubris will get us all killed - which is what you demonstrate - but then have the audacity to say that my way of thinking is what will lead to issues if more people thought like me. On the contrary.

On 12/12/2024 at 1:37 PM, Scholar said:

This is the rule from realism that you should abide by: The weaker you are, the more violent and oppressive you have to be if you want to be the hegemony, because you do not hold the natural position of hegemony. The natural position of hegemony, naturally goes to the one who is strong, so to maintain your power, you must constantly and violently oppress those who would be more powerful than you, if you simply allowed them to be.

This is why the US can afford to act from a non-coercive position geopolitical speaking, which benefits not only the US, but all nations in the world. They have the natural hegemon, so they don't need to suppress anyone in violent and oppressive ways to maintain their own position of power.

So, from a realist position, the US should maintain it's power, and suppress weak nations like Russia who have false aspirations of competing for hegemony.

This is twisting realism to defend US hegemony while completely ignoring the coercion and violence it relies on to maintain its dominance. On the one hand you view imperialism as evil or only narrowly define it's worst aspect as annexation - but then go on to claim that from a realist position the US should maintain its power by suppressing weaker nations like Russia. First, Russia isn't by any means weak. Second, this overlooks that realism isn't about being prescriptive, but descriptive of power dynamics. Third, realism means not being so propagandized by the empire that you are unable to see the reality of the players your dealing with and view them as geopolitically irrelevant backwaters when they are anything but.

Edited Friday at 04:22 PM by zazen

[zazen]

On 12/12/2024 at 1:37 PM, Scholar said:

The natural position of hegemony, naturally goes to the one who is strong, so to maintain your power, you must constantly and violently oppress those who would be more powerful than you, if you simply allowed them to be.

This is why the US can afford to act from a non-coercive position geopolitical speaking, which benefits not only the US, but all nations in the world. They have the natural hegemon, so they don't need to suppress anyone in violent and oppressive ways to maintain their own position of power.

So, from a realist position, the US should maintain it's power, and suppress weak nations like Russia who have false aspirations of competing for hegemony.

Isn't that contradictory though? It's either: the US is the natural hegemon so they don't need to suppress anyone, or they do in order to maintain their power against potential competing powers?

A common claim I hear is that the West and the US must dominate the world because other powers "can’t be trusted" - these same people bemoan dictators, but this is itself a justification for a global dictatorship - its dictatorship taken to another level beyond nation states. A classic case of projecting the very behavior they claim to oppose. By insisting on a single hegemon to "keep the peace," they’re advocating for a system where one power dictates terms to everyone else, under the guise of moral superiority, human rights and democracy - yet ironically being un-democratic geopolitically.

[PurpleTree]

 

[Raze]

They’re going straight to ukraine 

[Leo Gura]

Some good analysis:

 

[El Zapato]

Even from that perspective, it is still completely illegitimate. War is not a moral vehicle.  No, soup for Russia! No, peace deal.  The West waving the peace certificate?  No, Agent Orange is waving the American flag and making money with Putin.  Disgusting!

Edited Saturday at 10:14 AM by El Zapato

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, El Zapato said:

it is still completely illegitimate.

When it comes to war, legitimate does not exist. It's whatever you can get away with.

Edited Saturday at 09:47 AM by Leo Gura

[Bobby_2021]

Russians cannot keep fighting forever and might run out of resources. So as the Ukraine. A complete collapse of the Ukrainian army is not implausible.

 

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Russians cannot keep fighting forever and might run out of resources. So as the Ukraine.

So just like every war ever fought

[El Zapato]

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

When it comes to war, legitimate does not exist. It's whatever you can get away with.

True enough, practical reality can be harsh, and the usual result is that the spoils go to the winner. But as the argument argues, some conflicts are founded in higher moral goals. Putin's aim is still at its basis a form of self-aggrandizement that is even more morally depraved. The same for Agent Orange.

Edited Saturday at 10:06 AM by El Zapato

[El Zapato]

25 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Russians cannot keep fighting forever and might run out of resources. So as the Ukraine. A complete collapse of the Ukrainian army is not implausible.

 

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

Edited Saturday at 10:14 AM by El Zapato

[Scholar]

19 hours ago, zazen said:

Isn't that contradictory though? It's either: the US is the natural hegemon so they don't need to suppress anyone, or they do in order to maintain their power against potential competing powers?

A common claim I hear is that the West and the US must dominate the world because other powers "can’t be trusted" - these same people bemoan dictators, but this is itself a justification for a global dictatorship - its dictatorship taken to another level beyond nation states. A classic case of projecting the very behavior they claim to oppose. By insisting on a single hegemon to "keep the peace," they’re advocating for a system where one power dictates terms to everyone else, under the guise of moral superiority, human rights and democracy - yet ironically being un-democratic geopolitically.

You are profoundly missing the point, because you're not a realist. You're a moralist.

Realism has nothing to do with morality, with what is a dictatorship or not.

 

When speaking of a natural hegemony, it doesn't mean the hegemon will rule in peace and be morally upstanding in all it's interactions. It means that in practice, times will be more peaceful and it will not necessitate nearly as much coercion to maintain it's position, because it already is naturally in this position.

 

If you are born with pathetic weak genes that make your arms look like sticks, the only way you could maintain your position on top of the hierarchy, in a system in which physical prowess rules, is by basically preventing anyone and everything from growing stronger than you. You would murder all the babies, even your own, in fear of them growing stronger than you because most likely they will, given how pathetically weak you are. That is the only way you could possibly maintain power, through absolute brutality and barbarism.

Now, if the strongest rules, he does not have to have the same fears. He still has to be wary of competition, but the amount of coercion and barbarism he requires to maintain power will not be nearly as high.

Russia is the pathetic little boy who is in absolutely no position to rule at all, and the only way they could have any meaningful impact in this world is by creating an empire and subjugation the even weaker people around them to enslave them, as they have done for centuries. This is core to Russian siginficance.

China and the US don't need to do this in the same way. They don't need to invade half the continent they exist on just to be relevant on the world stage. Now of course, China is extremely coercive, but not on the level Russia needs to be if it truly wanted to restore it's hegemon position.

 

 

So ironically people like you are the most irrational of all. You don't understand realism, you don't engage in it, you mask your perverted, twisted moral position into a position of false realism so you can pretend like your proclamations are rational and objectively justified. But that is laughable. The US, such as any nation state, is engaging in immoral and coercive behavior. But it pales in comparison to the things the Russian is perfectly willing to do, has done and will do in the future. Just look at what Russia did in Afghanistan, they completely eradicated entire cities for no other reason than mild resistance against the communist ideals, intentionally wiping out civilians on a mass scale to teach them a lesson.

You have no comprehension of the barbarism Russia engages in and is capable of. Your america-bad nonsense will not fly with me, you're the 21st century version of a communist to me.

Edited Saturday at 12:29 PM by Scholar

[zazen]

@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.

Edited Saturday at 05:23 PM by zazen

[Scholar]

1 hour 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.

You're not engaging with what I am saying in any shape or form.

[zazen]

@Scholar I think I’ve engaged far more with your points than you have mine. The point is, we don’t agree on some points even existing to even agree with or disagree with. We’re both starting from different places.

For example, you presume that Russia wants to enslave and rule half the continent, that it’s a weak pathetic backwater and geopolitically irrelevant, yet somehow at the same time is more imperial and coercive than the US. Those presumptions are relics of a Cold War hangover - they once held truth but no longer do. In fact, it’s the modern West that embodies most of those traits today - being imperial, interventionist and coercive. Or in other words being pro-actively imperial rather than reactively protective.

Regarding the “natural” hegemon - I agree that the US has many natural strengths lending to its position. It’s geographically blessed and protected by vast seas and weak or allied neighbours. That’s a big part of why it can dick swing and flex across the world with little consequence. But this is the same reason why people critique its need to be imperial or interventionist in the first place, which are inherently coercive. It has no need to violently venture out as there are no real threats to its existence, just its global dominance.

Instead, the US projects itself into regions it doesn’t have any natural connection to. It goes beyond its own natural advantages to dominate regions where its “natural hegemony” would not otherwise extend and requires un-natural constructs for it to do so ie dollar dominance, global institutions, military bases etc.

The US dollar is the ultimate symbol of a construct that isn’t so natural but that artificially benefits a lifestyle of excess many Americans are able to enjoy. It’s not backed by gold, commodities or anything - just the collective faith in US dominance, which is enforced by military might (800 bases) and global coercion. The moment nations begin trading outside it or start building alternative financial frameworks they are dismissed at best or delivered democracy at worst - Libya, Iraq. But don’t mind me, that’s natural hegemony.

Edited Saturday at 10:57 PM by zazen

[BlueOak]

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
 

Edited Saturday at 11:08 PM by BlueOak

[PurpleTree]

 

[Scholar]

2 hours ago, zazen said:

For example, you presume that Russia wants to enslave and rule half the continent, that it’s a weak pathetic backwater and geopolitically irrelevant, yet somehow at the same time is more imperial and coercive than the US. 

That is not a contradiction. Russia still engages in genocides today, it uses tribal people as cannon fodder in their wars. These stories do not reach a lot of people, but I spoke to multiple tribal group members from Russia. They view Russia as an imperialist force which is subjugating them, genociding them, destroying their culture. Russia is so large that because of the great distances, the only way you can maintain the empire (you have to look at how many ethnic groups exist in Russia, and inherently, many of them don't feel Russian at all) is through an iron hand.

Just look at what Putin did in Chechnya only weeks after he stepped into office. This kind of offensive, imperialist war has not been wages by western nations for a significant amount of time. What happened in Georgia, and several other nations that Russia felt it had a right to pull back into it's sphere of influence through force? You seem to be unaware of the stark difference between a far less developed Russian imperialist culture and the current US culture, which is a more modern form of imperialism.

 

2 hours ago, zazen said:

But this is the same reason why people critique its need to be imperial or interventionist in the first place, which are inherently coercive. It has no need to violently venture out as there are no real threats to its existence, just its global dominance.

I thought you are a realist? Under the realist perspective, nations will inherently act based on their interest. You can't apply this to Russia, to excuse away it's crimes, but then talk about the US as if it was excluded from this framework.

Of course the US has needs to intervene in world politics, you just seem to not care about those needs because you seem to want to view all of this from a moralistic lense, which is not very explanatory of how the US acts. While you can critique US policy, in the end what you are engaging in to me is a whataboutism, which has little relevancy to the analysis of the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

By focusing and framing it as a US-Russia conflict, you neglect the reality of the Ukrainain will. 

 

2 hours ago, zazen said:

Instead, the US projects itself into regions it doesn’t have any natural connection to. It goes beyond its own natural advantages to dominate regions where its “natural hegemony” would not otherwise extend and requires un-natural constructs for it to do so ie dollar dominance, global institutions, military bases etc.

This is what geopolitics looks like. If you don't engage in such things, someone else will. This is the selective application of realism that I was speaking of.

 

2 hours ago, zazen said:

The US dollar is the ultimate symbol of a construct that isn’t so natural but that artificially benefits a lifestyle of excess many Americans are able to enjoy. It’s not backed by gold, commodities or anything - just the collective faith in US dominance, which is enforced by military might (800 bases) and global coercion. The moment nations begin trading outside it or start building alternative financial frameworks they are dismissed at best or delivered democracy at worst - Libya, Iraq. But don’t mind me, that’s natural hegemony.

Fiat currencies are far superior to gold-standard currencies. And what you speak of I consider conspiracy theories which are not at all substantiated, but common america-bad talking points. With all due respect, but we will not arrive at any common ground because I view you as propagandized by alternative media sources. In the end, I don't have the time to go through a lengthy historical analysis to show why this viewpoint is simplistic and wrong.

Edited Sunday at 01:13 AM by Scholar