Latest Ukraine/Russia Thread

[Lyubov]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

Nice summary. How can anyone be mad about US and Russia diplomatically coming to the table to stop the war and killing, and more widely mend their relations and defrost this Cold War atmosphere that’s lingering for no good reason. The Biden admin didn’t communicate with Russia for 3 years since the war began, yet Trump has done so in 3 weeks.

It’s good Trump is in talks with Russia, it’s bad he’s in talks without the key players involved whose security architecture is affected - Ukraine and the EU more widely. How can Person A and B decide the fate of person C? Perhaps Ukraine and Europe had their chance but showed no sign of being open to engage in talks…Zelenskyy literally signed a decree banning  negotiations with Putin.

Further to your point about China - it’s positive for war to stop, but not if it’s solely to stop one in order to get ready for the next one. Rubio even mentioned that we are in a era of multipolarity, that doesn’t mean many will happily sit by and do nothing about that changing reality.

Wild times with what Trump and Elon (sharing Jeffrey Sachs) are posting: 

Because it’s clear these peace talks are disingenuous and ignorant altruism born from the ineptitude and near sidedness of the Trump administration looking for a quick political victory. This is an issue that requires contemplation and a strong coalition of everyone involved especially NATO and the countries that comprise of it. Arrogance and overconfidence from the orange man, repeating the same silly talking points that “this never would have happened if I was president” which his brain rotted moronic voters eat up. Just a terrible way to go about ending a massive and nuanced conflict that could spiral again into a bigger one, which if Trump does indeed rush this and give concessions to Russia there’s a good chance Russia will attack Ukraine again and this time Europe will probably get dragged in. No one is against peace talks. It’s just clear to anyone with half a brain who has done some research on every aspect of this that the USA is going about this the entirely wrong way. I don’t have a crystal ball but given the damage that has been done to the trust of NATO / USA, Putin is going to rebuild his army and test NATO in 5-10 years form now, probably attack a Baltic state or enter Ukraine with European peace keeping troops, and dare the USA to respond, which they probably won’t given the direction this administration is going. No one is against peace talks, they are against appeasing an aggressor that has zero intention of peace, Russia is clearly not serious at all about peace talks, they want capitulation. Russia knows it can sit and play the attrition game and it’s only a matter of time for the grid locked and dysfunctional western political process to fuck up and fall apart. So what does that mean for the future? Europe building an army, Ukraine a constant conflict zone and the real possibility of Europe vs Russia in the next 5-10 years. 

[Raze]

1 hour ago, PurpleTree said:

Yea i think i‘ll have to put him on my glorious ignore list too soon. He’s just regurgitating Russian/Putin propaganda it’s boring.

 

[PurpleTree]

2 minutes ago, Raze said:

 

Personally i seemingly look at patterns.

If someone has a pattern of always defending the same side (Russia, China, Israel, West, France whatever) without ever criticising it, there no use in reading their posts or arguing with them. It’s like arguing with bots.

Ukraine personally i don’t really criticise because they are being attacked.

[Raze]

52 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

Because it’s clear these peace talks are disingenuous and ignorant altruism born from the ineptitude and near sidedness of the Trump administration looking for a quick political victory. This is an issue that requires contemplation and a strong coalition of everyone involved especially NATO and the countries that comprise of it. Arrogance and overconfidence from the orange man, repeating the same silly talking points that “this never would have happened if I was president” which his brain rotted moronic voters eat up. Just a terrible way to go about ending a massive and nuanced conflict that could spiral again into a bigger one, which if Trump does indeed rush this and give concessions to Russia there’s a good chance Russia will attack Ukraine again and this time Europe will probably get dragged in. No one is against peace talks. It’s just clear to anyone with half a brain who has done some research on every aspect of this that the USA is going about this the entirely wrong way. I don’t have a crystal ball but given the damage that has been done to the trust of NATO / USA, Putin is going to rebuild his army and test NATO in 5-10 years form now, probably attack a Baltic state or enter Ukraine with European peace keeping troops, and dare the USA to respond, which they probably won’t given the direction this administration is going. No one is against peace talks, they are against appeasing an aggressor that has zero intention of peace, Russia is clearly not serious at all about peace talks, they want capitulation. Russia knows it can sit and play the attrition game and it’s only a matter of time for the grid locked and dysfunctional western political process to fuck up and fall apart. So what does that mean for the future? Europe building an army, Ukraine a constant conflict zone and the real possibility of Europe vs Russia in the next 5-10 years. 

You’re basically saying we should continue to escalate with Russia because they will continue to escalate with us.

What exactly is the evidence for that? What if it’s wrong, and this is creating the issue in the first place. 

[PurpleTree]

 

[danniel]

The latest development in the USA-Ukraine frenzy, as Trump called Pres Zelensky a dictator, the more shallow reasons seem evident apart from the reasoning from right winged supporters of labeling Ukr as 'Free Loaders'

Ukraine has minerals sites which produce 7% of global titanium and 22 minerals site which are 'rare earth minerals' which are used in development of semiconductors, these minerals and ores are estimated worth to be around $10 trillion USD.

 

Trump (personally  i feel like its more of a strategic [not his own] move), knowing Ukraine wont survive much longer if USA pulled its aid so you basically ask for 50% of the mineral pools of Ukr

[zazen]

@Lyubov That's definitely a fear we need to watch out for - that this is just a temporary freezing of the conflict to be re ignited at a later date. But the fear is more from the West wanting to re-ignite it than the East. What use does the largest country with the most resources on the planet have for expanding, especially with an aging and declining demographic. Most, if not all expansionist imperial action has taken place when powers have had a bounty of young men to partake in such actions - not when your demographic pyramid is upside down, and especially not when you already sit on the most resources on the planet and are integrated with a rising super power and Global South (BRICS) you can sell those resources to. Absolutely no incentive to destabilise yourself and get bogged down in a war with the West - but absolutely every incentive for the West / US to destabilize and bog Russia down in it as it threatens their unipolar position.

Whats changed now is the strategy in countering this new multi-polar reality. Trumps admin acknowledge this reality -  even the Munich Conference was titled: Multipolarization. Reality has set in, this reality will either be fought, or a strong position within it will be sought - which is what Trump is attempting to do. In fact Trump has said that he wants to try to dis-unite Russia and China by working with Russia. Not only are they talking peace but joint projects together:

https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-us-saudi-arctic-energy-rdif-ukraine-russia-capital/

And this is where you are correct in that these peace talks are disingenuous or serve another agenda. Beside Trump demanding half of Ukrainian mineral profits to be for the US which is just mafia behavior - they seem to be seeking peace with Russia so they may have them on side to go to war with China - the real rival that has been mentioned many times as the actual threat. This is bipartisan and a strong US stance now. China isn't a threat to US existence, it’s a threat to the US ego and supremacy.

I don't think Trump is stupid enough to go to war with China, though he's surrounded by China hawks. But they will attempt to counter China however they can economically, technologically and geopolitically - in this case by warming relations with Russia so they can wrestle Russia away from China. Russia obviously isn't naive enough to fall for this.

We can't pick our neighbors. Just as Ukraine and Europe can't choose not to neighbor Russia, Russia can't choose not to neighbor China - so its only rational and wise to have good relations with those you can't magically separate from. And totally unwise to paint them as the devil and not want to engage in talks with them, especially considering the existence of nuclear capability.

On 17/02/2025 at 2:39 AM, Lyubov said:

Many of you blabber about how “AMERICA HEGEMONY BAD” as if somehow making it fair for Russia is going to lead to a more peaceful world. They are going to keep coming for more land. Some of you guys in here can barely stomach supporting Ukraine with your tax dollars. You think such people will stand and fight in a war? I don’t possibly see Europeans having a stomach to stand up and fight when Russia rolls in. More of Ukraine and the Baltics are next. NATO is done after Trump. Europe start arming yourself. 

To your post above from the previous page and to add to what @Raze says above - isn't it actually because of Russia being treated un-fairly that this whole shit show has unfolded?  Fairness is the foundation of stability. The entire Ukraine crisis is a direct result of treating Russia unfairly since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia was willing to play nice. It disbanded the USSR, accepted its diminished role, even floated the idea of joining NATO. And what did it get in return? A West that kept moving the goalposts, absorbing one ex-Soviet state after another into NATO, encircling Russia while pretending this was all just about “defensive alliances”. The West is even arrogant enough to openly declare their intent through think tank documents strategizing how to encircle and weaken Russia.

Russia isn't being imperialistic per se, it’s reacting to imperialism itself. It's reacted in the most blatant way now (by invading Ukraine) when NATO is on its doorstep threatening its core interests from within its historic buffer zone of Ukraine. Until we can terraform geography to have perfect buffer zones, or we enlighten ourselves into blissful Bhuddas that can co-exist - geographic red line buffer zones must be taken seriously rather than encroached upon. Every nations security concerns should be dealt with fairly rather than unfairly. The reason for this mess is Western supremacy, imperialistic encirclement and a vassalized Europe that have licked the boot of US foreign policy, and marched in it's shadows, without any thought for a independent foreign policy that may serve it better. This whole US - EU split may help wake them up a little and develop some independence for once.

Edited yesterday at 10:00 AM by zazen

[Hatfort]

Now the West showing its true face. Yeah, Ukraine, you know the war we pushed you to fight that you lost, and hundreds of thousands of your men died? Here's the bill, 500 billion dollars, you can pay it back in comfortable installments with their pertinent interests. Plus we will own half of your natural mineral resources in perpetuity. You're welcome.

Edited yesterday at 09:43 AM by Hatfort

[Scholar]

2 hours ago, zazen said:

But the fear is more from the West wanting to re-ignite it than the East. What use does the largest country with the most resources on the planet have for expanding, especially with an aging and declining demographic. Most, if not all expansionist imperial action has taken place when powers have had a bounty of young men to partake in such actions - not when your demographic pyramid is upside down, and especially not when you already sit on the most resources on the planet and are integrated with a rising super power and Global South (BRICS) you can sell those resources to. Absolutely no incentive to destabilise yourself and get bogged down in a war with the West - but absolutely every incentive for the West / US to destabilize and bog Russia down in it as it threatens their unipolar position.

This is delusional thinking. They already are dealing catastrophic damage to themselves by sacrificing generations of men to this war. This already proves that they do not care about this demographic issue you are describing.

The essential reason for why a free Ukraine cannot be possible under the imperialistc Russian regime is because it threatens their own regime. There cannot be an alternative in their sphere of influence, especially with such deep cultural ties, that will allow freedom and western values and prosperity, giving the russian population a constant reminder that their brothers and sisters (sometimes literally) live far better, more free and prosperous lifes than they do.

[PurpleTree]

28 minutes ago, Scholar said:

The essential reason for why a free Ukraine cannot be possible under the imperialistc Russian regime is because it threatens their own regime. There cannot be an alternative in their sphere of influence, especially with such deep cultural ties, that will allow freedom and western values and prosperity, giving the russian population a constant reminder that their brothers and sisters (sometimes literally) live far better, more free and prosperous lifes than they do.

True

[PurpleTree]

Maybe the US see that WW3 will be coming so they try to persuade Russia/Putin not to nuke them.

Some say US is trying to appease Putin to ditch Iran and China but that’ll never work. 

[PurpleTree]

 

[PurpleTree]

“MAGA Morons” is good 

 

[zazen]

4 hours ago, Scholar said:

This is delusional thinking. They already are dealing catastrophic damage to themselves by sacrificing generations of men to this war. This already proves that they do not care about this demographic issue you are describing

It actually proves the opposite. If Russia truly didn’t care about its demographic decline, it wouldn’t be fighting this war with such urgency. The fact they're willing to take on the immense cost and risks of this conflict suggests that they saw it as a now or never situation - meaning this wasn’t some whimsical imperial adventure but a strategic necessity before they lost the capability to act.

Rather than proving that Russia is recklessly expansionist, it suggests they calculated it was better to secure their strategic position while they still had the manpower to do so, rather than risk NATO creeping further in and waiting until they were weaker and unable to respond. If Russia were truly in an aggressive, imperialistic phase, it would be engaging in expansionist wars more consistently across multiple fronts, not reacting to a direct geopolitical threat at its border.

4 hours ago, Scholar said:

The essential reason for why a free Ukraine cannot be possible under the imperialistc Russian regime is because it threatens their own regime. There cannot be an alternative in their sphere of influence, especially with such deep cultural ties, that will allow freedom and western values and prosperity, giving the russian population a constant reminder that their brothers and sisters (sometimes literally) live far better, more free and prosperous lifes than they do.

The essential concern isn’t that Ukraine might become a wealthy, thriving democracy - it’s that Ukraine was being turned into a military proxy, potentially housing NATO forces right on Russia’s doorstep. The timing of Russia’s action aligns perfectly with NATO’s increased involvement in Ukraine, not with any sudden surge in Ukrainian prosperity. Before the war began Ukraine's GDP per capita was half that of Russia's, it wasn't some beacon of prosperity threatening Russia.

Think about it - why would Russia, a country with the largest landmass on Earth, the most resources, deep integration with the rising multipolar world - throw all of that into chaos over envy? Why would a nation positioned to thrive in a post-Western world order, plugged into the economic future of BRICS and China, jeopardize itself over a country that was already one of Europe’s poorest and most corrupt before the war even started?

Ukraine wasn’t on the verge of becoming some economic powerhouse that would shame Russia into democratic reform. Even if we entertain that idea (that Russia can't bear a successful neighbour) then we have to ask: does that justify going to war and risking nuclear war with NATO? War is not some minor policy adjustment. It’s the most extreme move a nation can make, that carries existential risks in this case. Why would a country deliberately destabilize itself, endure years of economic warfare, burn through its manpower, and risk nuclear escalation just because it's pride is stung by a successful neighbour? Nations don’t throw themselves into the fire over a bruised ego.

If anything, it’ the West that can’t tolerate independent systems that reject its neoliberal model and may work better. The US has spent decades toppling governments, imposing sanctions, and waging wars against nations that dared to take a different path. Russia or China isn’t the one trying to force its way of life on the world.

The mythical successful neighbour theory is at best a secondary cause of the war, not a primary one which is about security concerns and the geographic red line that Ukraine represents as a buffer zone - which is the essence of the war, in reality.

 

Edited 18 hours ago by zazen

[zazen]

@PurpleTree @Scholar @Lyubov  You guys view comments from myself, Raze or Hatfort above and conclude we are anti-West for the sake of it. I think this is mistaking focus for bias, and clarity for having some anti-West agenda. Maybe the reason the West gets critiqued more is because it does more criticizable things? At a scale incomparable to others.

The Western centric view wants people outraged about headscarves in Iran while the countries surrounding Iran are reduced to moonscapes by the West. They want you crying about artistic suppression in China - which, in reality is China refusing to let foreign backed protest movements destabilize its governance - while they turn a blind eye to ethnic cleansing in Gaza.

Theres a reason why the threads on this forum regarding the Ukraine/Russia war or Israel get the most engagement - because in the grand hierarchy of global destabilisation, death and destruction - these pose the most risk and are the most vile. The reason for frequent comments criticizing the West and in particular the US, is because of the frequency of violations and the fact that the US is behind the worst of them.

You yourselves are now bemoaning how the US is now treating Europe. As Kissinger said ''“To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.”

Westerners, especially Europeans, are being force fed a civilisational and geopolitical red pill through the red blood of their own people in Ukraine. The war has laid bare the reality of their existence: that they aren't independent nations, but vassals propping up US hegemony. 

Anyone pointing out the empire's tendency to feed its "allies" into the wood chipper gets dismissed as an "America hater" or "Russian bot." Now we're watching  european economies implode while Washington whistles all the way to the bank. Apparently, focusing on the empire that has 800+ military bases, turns nations into failed states and treats sanctions like party favours means you're "obsessed." Some of us can't help noticing that one player is responsible for more global chaos than all others combined. 

And now Europe's getting that "special friend" treatment previously reserved for the Global South. Their leaders are learning what leaders in the Middle East and Latin America have known for decades: the empire doesn't have allies, only useful idiots. This challenges our worldview about our own ''Western civilisation” and the lofty sounding rhetoric we were made to believe about it.

The Cold war with Russia is ending, but the awakening from the splash of cold water waking us up from our propagandized existence has just begun.

Edited 19 hours ago by zazen

[Lyubov]

17 hours ago, Raze said:

You’re basically saying we should continue to escalate with Russia because they will continue to escalate with us.

What exactly is the evidence for that? What if it’s wrong, and this is creating the issue in the first place. 

You label it as escalating, I see it as defending against an aggressor country that attacked another country. You don’t get to play the victim card when you yourself are the aggressor. In addition Putin is the one escalating while Ukraine is defending, the very logic of escalating doesn’t apply when you are the defending country having another one come into your land and try to topple you. 

[zazen]

@Lyubov I responded to you earlier in the thread that you may have missed but it’s related to your response to Raze. There’s a fetishization of freedom and autonomy in the West that can be trapping and a hindrance to diplomatic existence between nations.

On 31/12/2024 at 11:44 AM, zazen said:

You’re totally right regarding US support for Taiwan being the most rational and strategic thing for the US or any major power to do at the time. Just as it was right to resist the expansive imperialism of the Soviet Union in the past, it’s consistent to say that Russia and China are right in resisting today’s imperial power of the US. That doesn’t make their methods morally clean, but it does make their motivations understandable.

Smaller nations like Ukraine or Taiwan are caught in the crossfire between competing powers. Their sovereignty (no ones in fact) is an absolute - as we don't exist in a vacuum. Just like how nations can't choose their neighbours, we can't choose our family. I think this idealistic vision of being sovereign and free is a trap with devastating consequences. These smaller nations that are buffer zones unfortunately have to give up lesser freedoms for the larger freedom of global stability and survival.

The West view Ukraine having to remain neutral as a loss (to their dominance - as if they really care about its own sovereignty lol) but remaining neutral means Ukraine avoids being ground into dust between giants. It's better to be 80% sovereign (by acknowledging your neighbours security concerns) and alive, than 100% sovereign but not alive to even enjoy that freedom (by mocking those security concerns). And neutrality isn't some unique curse of the present. The Cold War demanded similar compromises also - smaller nations play buffer zones to prevent nuclear apocalypse. The difference now is that we’ve stopped calling it what it is. Instead, we moralise about “freedom” and “sovereignty” while ignoring the geopolitical tectonics beneath our feet.

People confuse the secondary and incidental gains of a war - territory or resources - with its primary cause. They see Russia’s moves in Ukraine and call it imperial ambition, while ignoring the deeper driver that is security and survival. No war can ever be justified, but it can be understood. What Russia is doing is ugly and brutal but it simply isn’t just about expansion - but against the expansion of an opposing imperial force wishing to encircle it - guess who.

Until we acknowledge valid security concerns, we’ll stay locked in this cycle and keep swapping primary causes for secondary ones - which means we're fighting the wrong battles due to misdiagnosis - which means we are bound to repeat the same mistakes, next up with China.

 

 

[Raze]

1 hour ago, Lyubov said:

You label it as escalating, I see it as defending against an aggressor country that attacked another country. You don’t get to play the victim card when you yourself are the aggressor. In addition Putin is the one escalating while Ukraine is defending, the very logic of escalating doesn’t apply when you are the defending country having another one come into your land and try to topple you. 

Escalating just means increasing the offensive. It isn’t inherently bad or good. If you think NATO should do more to assist Ukraine, that’s escalating, even if it’s a defensive or justified action.

My point is that the more one side escalates the more the other side will. Russia invading Ukraine was escalation, this resulting in Ukraine and NATO escalating their response, and vice versa.

I agree that if Russia is planning on taking on NATO, then NATO should continue fighting because it would continue anyway. My argument is I actually don’t think that’s Russias ambition and they invaded for other reasons that can be resolved to end the war.

Edited 16 hours ago by Raze

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Raze said:

Escalating just means increasing the offensive. It isn’t inherently bad or good. If you think NATO should do more to assist Ukraine, that’s escalating, even if it’s a defensive or justified action.

Yes, escalate.

[Raze]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, escalate.

This would mean sacrificing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, and if Russia continues to gain ground their situation will just get worse.