The New "New World Order"
With the Ukraine-Russia war going on there is obviously a lot of people who want to comment on all of the ongoing events such as the suffering of the refugees, the attacks on the Ukraine cities, on how "evil" Putin and what he is doing, etc. However this being a "Philosophy forum", I'm kind of hoping there might be a more objective way to address the issue such as what the long term consequences for Ukraine, Russia, Europe, the US, and the rest of the world might be. It might be kind of ironic that during an actual armed conflict to try and look at it in a way that we might look at a hypothetical war by focusing on what might be instead of how currently things are, but since we are merely discussing things and not really doing anything about it, it might be the right way to approach the issue.
For example, while this conflict is awful on the other side of the world there are tensions between China and Taiwan in that China views Taiwan as a breakaway province from China and has said they are willing to use military action to force Taiwan to rejoin mainland China. For anyone not aware of this issue but aware of the Ukraine one, I imagine it would sound a bit like the issue going on between Ukraine-Russia mainly because it is almost exactly like the same problem. An interesting dynamic of the Ukraine-Russia conflict is that China is observing what is going on over there in order to help them what some of the issues they will have to deal with if and when they finally decided to attack Taiwan in order to get it back.
Also there is the issue of how NATO and the European Union will deal with the long term issues after the conflict. Right now Germany is talking about rebuilding it's military (sometimes they said they would never do after WWII) and countries that seemed like they often couldn't agree on anything are starting to be more willing to work together (at least in the short term) after they realize that Ukraine isn't the only country Russia is willing to occupy.
For example, while this conflict is awful on the other side of the world there are tensions between China and Taiwan in that China views Taiwan as a breakaway province from China and has said they are willing to use military action to force Taiwan to rejoin mainland China. For anyone not aware of this issue but aware of the Ukraine one, I imagine it would sound a bit like the issue going on between Ukraine-Russia mainly because it is almost exactly like the same problem. An interesting dynamic of the Ukraine-Russia conflict is that China is observing what is going on over there in order to help them what some of the issues they will have to deal with if and when they finally decided to attack Taiwan in order to get it back.
Also there is the issue of how NATO and the European Union will deal with the long term issues after the conflict. Right now Germany is talking about rebuilding it's military (sometimes they said they would never do after WWII) and countries that seemed like they often couldn't agree on anything are starting to be more willing to work together (at least in the short term) after they realize that Ukraine isn't the only country Russia is willing to occupy.
Comments (108)
Basically the invasion of Ukraine by Russia has been a geopolitical earthquake that isn't at all over yet. Both NATO and EU have transformed a lot in only few days. And Russia has made a move that will define it's path for a very long time. The Russian Roulette has been played and the gun has fired. Who gets killed is the real question.
Obviously China now sees how effective (or ineffective) the sanctions of the West are and will take that into consideration. And China is the obvious candidate to hold peace talks with Ukraine and Russia, as now Russia is quite dependent of China thanks to the sanctions. So for China, this all is good. Only if Russia collapses it's bad.
Quoting dclements
Let's first think what Taiwan is for China.
For the PRC Taiwan is basically the last remnants of the Civil War where the Kuomingtang retreated. It would be like if during the US Civil War the Confederacy would not have surrendered, but had retreated to present Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands and held high their flags on those islands to this day. There in the Caribbean the former secessionists would now have prospered and continued with everything the Confederacy was about. If not at the present having anymore slaves, they would still at least have some kind of Apartheid-type segregation. All this would simply annoy the hell out of US politicians as the Confederacy on a small island would be "unfinished business" and the liberals would demand to end finally such blatant racism and a stain in the Americas. To get public support and a notch in the history books by finally squashing the rebels and ending segregation would be obvious temptation for any "Northern" politician.
For China Taiwan represents a similar annoyance and temptation.
Especially when Taiwan is a) more prosperous per capita than mainland China and b) it's now a democracy. It's existence is this annoying remark how weak China still is and where the American "line of islands" start. Yet this jingoistic bait has also it's drawbacks. First, if the US responds and gets angry (let's say the Chinese sink an American flat top) your facing all out war with the US. Second, even if the US only gives materiel support, invading an island can end up in a huge "Bay of Pigs times twenty"-fiasco, a failure that wouldn't only threaten the present leadership but perhaps the position of the whole Communist Party itself. An invasion of Taiwan could basically result in an Chinese version of the Gallipoli campaign: a humiliating costly defeat. And then it could ruin the economy, the lucrative trade China enjoys. And thus China is extremely closely looking at what is happening to Russia now. How effective are the sanctions. And how willing is the West to arm Ukraine. China can also look at how Putin, who has tried from 2008 to truly modernize the Russian armed forces, is now performing against a determined foe.
That's weird that you put it that way because I see China as more like the Confederacy and Taiwan as more like the North. After all, China is the one segregating their population by means of the type of treatment the various groups receive, with some of the treatment bordering on genocide. China sees the capitalism and freedom that makes up the Taiwanese society as a threat to the Communist party, just as Russia sees the same type of representational, western-leaning societal engineering going on in Ukraine as a threat to the One-Party regime in Russia.
There is the problem of how the information Putin had about the kind of resistance he would go up against in Ukraine was inaccurate and China may be wondering the same thing about Taiwan, and the longer it takes for Russia to conquer Ukraine may inspire more in Taiwan to more fervently resist any invasion by China. It is to early to tell. I'm hoping for a rebellion in Russia given the declining economy, government crackdown on media sources and the death of many thousand Russian sons in a senseless war against their Ukrainian cousins.
Oh I put that way for people to understand how it feels for Chinese communists that rule mainland China. Just to portray the hostility.
Speaking of speculation, I'm currently reading the Kindle book by novelist Ken Follett : NEVER. It was published in 2021, so its geopolitics is quite up-to-date for a work of fiction. Instead of The West versus Russia, it's The West (US primarily) versus China. Yet the level heads of both of the major powers are trying to defuse an insurrection in North Korea, which threatens to use its nukes. forcing a confrontation of the big boys. Hence the title. So China necessarily plays the role of peacemaker.
Follett portrays the internal political struggles between Old Guard of saber-rattling us-vs-them conservatives (there's even a Trump-type presidential candidate), and the younger, more cosmopolitan & less aggressive people on both sides. The ineffectiveness of economic sanctions as a deterrent on bomb-toting bullies & desperate dictators is illustrated. But the major powers can't afford to play Russian roulette. So, there may be no viable alternative (literally and figuratively) to laying chips on Las Vegas roulette.
Apparently, the younger people of Russia are also less romantically nationalistic than Putin -- except for the neo-non-nazis (like the Olympic gymnast) who display a symbolic letter "Z", apparently as a remodeled Swastika. We can only hope that the younger more moderate people on both sides of the renewed Iron Curtain, will learn from history, that Putin's re-enactment of Hitler's invasion of Poland, will not turn-out as expected by the invaders. This unruly world resists being ordered even at the point of a missile. :smile:
The “Z” is regarded as particularly incendiary given it has been seen daubed on Russian tanks and vehicles in Ukraine and has come to symbolise support for president Vladimir Putin and the invasion.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/mar/07/shocking-behaviour-russian-gymnast-shows-z-symbol-on-podium-next-to-ukrainian-winner
How the letter Z became a symbol for pro-war Russians "
https://fortune.com/2022/03/07/russia-z-tank-marking-how-letter-became-symbol-pro-ukraine-war-invasion/
The invasion of Ukraine by Russia bothers far more people than the Tamil Tigers vs. the Sinhalese ever could, A) This is taking place on NATO's steps, if not on its porch. B) Russia (and the former USSR) are/were big-name enemies to several big-name states. The people of Ukraine, unlike Iraqis or Afghans are democratic westerners. Thanks to Stalin (famine), Hitler (invasion and genocide), Chernobyl (reactors go boom!), and now Putin we have seen great suffering in Ukraine. We are more predisposed to think kindly of them than say... the people of Nagorno Karabakh.
At least 10,000,000 people were in the Ukrainian diaspora. They are a visible ethnic group in many places. There are roughy 2.5 million people of Ukrainian descent in Canada and the United States. Their presence in many countries makes their suffering, courage, and cause-in-general more accessible than that of Sudan or Yemen.
The remarkable unity displayed by EU and Nato member adds to the immediacy of their needs. If instead, only Cyprus, Portugal and Norway were helping the Ukrainians, we would probably care less about them.
We have been warring for millennia, why would we stop now?
I thought we already had a pro-NATO thread (see Ukraine Crisis), so I for one fail to see how having two is going to make the discussion "more objective".
BTW, which countries is Russia "willing to occupy" and how have you "realized" this?
Quoting Gnomon
Yeah, right. Because the Guardian says it's "incendiary", it MUST be so. As for the "Z" being a "remodeled swastika", that's just too ludicrous even for Guardian readers to believe. The way pro-NATO rhetoric zigzags between claims that Putin intends to "restore the Soviet Union" and claims that he is a "Nazi" is simply hilarious and shows that the West has run out of arguments and is resorting to redundant and moth-eaten clichés from yesteryear that even Westerners (at least the more intelligent among us) don't believe .... :grin:
In regard to the EU, it will be interesting to see how the Far Right parties will respond to the attack upon Ukraine. There has been support for Putin from them for the last ten years or so. As Foreign Policy article puts it:
Quoting Alina Polyakova
It’s a well-known fact that the West backs political groups in Russia and Russia backs political groups in the West. And Russia also backs far-left Western groups, not just far-right ones, the obvious objective being to influence the position of major parties where their policies are antagonistic to Russia’s interests.
In any case, there is no shortage of far-left parties like Die Linke (Germany), Podemos (Spain), Syriza (Greece) that share Russia’s opposition to globalization and US world domination, so they tend to be on Russia’s side.
Gerhard Schröder, Germany’s former chancellor and leader of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), who has much more influence on German (and international) politics than any far-right group, is a well-known supporter of Putin.
The Telegraph has called him “the most dangerous of Putin's useful idiots” and there is no need to look for far-right groups when there is opposition to arming Ukraine within the current center-left government which, incidentally, has just announced that it will not discontinue gas and oil supplies from Russia.
Different countries have different interests that are determined by the majority, not by fringe groups.
Gerhard Schröder is now getting a lot of criticism for his support. As a promoter of a certain kind of economy, his close connection to Putin is no longer connected to what centrists policies will be in the future.
The interests of national identity politics is not bound by the same language of win-win markets. You call them 'fringe' but they represent divisions that have been underway for some time. Russia itself is divided in that way.
My question is where will that kind of language go now that the level of violence in Ukraine has overturned the notion it is only an argument at a soirée.
In Germany, both the “far-right” (AfD) and “far-left” (Die Linke) have close links to Moscow. If mainstream opinion is strongly against Russia, then smaller parties will naturally become more careful about openly expressing support for Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
Incidentally, the same applies to major parties. They may overtly distance themselves from Russia in a show of obedience to the US, but at the end of the day business and industry need links to Russia which is a natural economic partner of Germany. This is why England and after it America have always tried to drive a wedge between Germany and Russia. But Germany’s economy can’t afford to ignore a large neighbor like Russia.
It is to be hoped that the Ukraine conflict will soon be over and Europe can resume normal relations with Russia.
I think the "Z" doesn't come from a remodeled Swastike, but is the way Putin's regime hopes to instill patriotic fervour to the war. And of course, many Russians will support their troops.
However if Trump divided Americans, I think that Putin has divided Russians even more. Yet when the country is falling into more authoritarianism, there isn't public discourse or honest polling. The sanctions are working and Russia could even face hyperinflation. Yet it's not so direct that hardships of the Russians will damage Putin's rule so much, when Putin simply says this is the way the West is attacking Russia (and not relate it to be the response to the invasion of Ukraine).
But more generally, the present situation where sanctions and likely counter-sanctions are already wrecking the global market, security of supply will become the new focus. The Corona pandemic already shaked the roots of the globalized supply chain, but now the idea of "Just on Time" logistics and things being produced in complicated global supply chains will be an idea of the past. However this crisis is going to end, the likelyhood of countries looking at having strategic reserves and maintaining domestic production. Also, China can look at Russia now and think carefully how they would cope when similar actions possibly are taken against them.
In a way, now the era of globalization is collapsing. It already suffered from a structural weakness which was made more obvious during the corona pandemic. The idea that an rich elite rules the world and the nation states obey their demands is just a fallacious dream when it comes to war and crises. It was a fallacy held before World War 1 and is proving a fallacy even today. The rich have influence in peacetime, but once a crisis happens, they will quickly fall in line.
The opponents of globalization might cheer about this at first, yet they ought to then first look at what the new not-so-globalized economy might be like.
Oh, I didn't mean that the crossed "Z" of a swastika (symbol of German nationalism) was literally or consciously re-shaped into a symbol of Russian nationalism. But the resemblance is interesting. :wink:
JAPANESE TEMPLE SYMBOL
NATIONAL SOCIALISM (NAZI) SYMBOL
AMERICAN FASCIST SYMBOL
TRUMP CAMPAIGN LOGO
AMAZON SHIRT SYMBOL
The "resemblance" is very interesting, indeed. But could it be that it's only in your mind? IMO, if anything, the swastika looks more like two stylized S's than Z's. :grin:
Plus, Z isn't the only letter used. They're also using V and many other letters:
What does the Z mean? Meaning of Russian symbol explained and why it’s on the tanks used in Ukraine invasion - I News
Of course, the shape similarity between a graphic symbol of the invasion of Ukraine, and a symbol of the invasion of Poland is an inference in the mind of the beholder. I can't read the minds of the painters, so I'm just guessing. But the political significance of such a symbol may be obvious to anyone familiar with the history of Fascism. Do you see the connection?
The link in your post indicates that reporters are still trying to understand why Russians are using a letter that is not in their Cyrillic alphabet. Perhaps it's meant to symbolize their "romanticized" mission of annexing a sovereign country into their reconstituted Russian empire. Since the intended meaning of the symbol has not been officially declared, I'm just offering my own personal interpretation : that it signifies Putin's dream of a "New World Order", with Russia as the dominant political & military player.. Do you imagine a different reason for the symbol.? :smile:
Why did Germany invade Poland? :
Germany invaded Poland to regain lost territory and ultimately rule their neighbor to the east.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-invades-poland
Swastika symbolism :
However, in the early 20th century, various right-wing adherents of the so-called “völkisch” movement in Germany, a movement in large part dedicated to uncovering a romanticized and largely mythical German/“Aryan” past, adopted the swastika as a symbol.
https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/swastika
Third Empire :
The Third Reich, meaning "Third Realm" or "Third Empire", alluded to the Nazis' conceit that Nazi Germany was the successor to the earlier Holy Roman Empire (800–1806) and German Empire (1871–1918).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany
Why would people who normally write in the Cyrillic script use the Latin one?
That’s exactly what I’m saying. “Guessing”, i.e., making things up. :grin:
Obviously, you are free to imagine anything you want. I for one see no “resemblance” whatsoever between a “Z” and a German swastika. And, of course, there is no evidence that the Russian servicemen thought of one when they painted, “V’s”, "A's", "X's", "O's", and many other symbols on their vehicles.
Incidentally, the swastika was used by many countries, including Poland in the 1920's and before:
Federacja Polskich Zwi?zków Obro?ców Ojczyzny - Wikipedia
Coat of arms of the Boreyko family, Poland, 14th/15th century - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
:up:
Quoting ssu
As far as I can tell, Putin and those in Russia that support his cause were hoping that they would A) be able to occupy Ukraine without much resistance and/or B) the West/NATO (as well as other countries wouldn't take much notice of the invasion.
Because neither of these things happened, Russia is having to take a larger bit of a sh+t sandwich then they were expecting to do. While some of this may help China in some ways, I think it makes China's realize it's plan of invading Taiwan and taking it through military force any time in the near future a more complex and difficult endeavor then they were hoping for. The US and her allies may not wish to get directly get involved with defending Ukraine while it is in a war with Russia, but I think it is a given that the same isn't true if China tries to start a war with Taiwan. I could be wrong but also Taiwan's army is a bit more prepared for an invasion than Ukraine was when Russia attacked, although I don't know if those in Taiwan could do a better job of repelling an invasion then the Ukrainians if and when the Chinese finally are able to get their soldiers to the island. The only way to really know is if and when China finally decides to go through with it.
Quoting ssu
You are right that Taiwan is very prosperous, but I think China wants it more for strategic purposes almost more than anything else. If they were able to A) take it without much of a fight and/or B) without much notice from the Us and her allies in the region, it would signal to the world that China is the new "super power" in the world in which even the US can't do really anything to stop. I know that kind of sounds silly (and/or crazy) to those of us that understand the situation but it was only a few weeks ago that almost EVERYONE was saying the same thing about Putin's idea of invading Ukraine. I could be wrong but I believe that if China thinks that they might be facing some or a lot of the same consequences that Russia is facing right now with invading Ukraine if they attack Taiwan, then it is likely they may not want to go through with it right now. However there is also the possibility they may want to seize on the opportunity while Russia is doing this to attack Taiwan while the world is distracted by that conflict and attack while the US (and some of our allies) is weakened by the sanctions we are imposing on Russia.
Again I know that sounds crazy but given that most of us in the West thought Putin trying to invade Ukraine was crazy, I wouldn't put it past those in power in either Russia or China to try ANYTHING in order to gain more power given the current state of affairs.
Yeah, I don't know much about what use to be called "The Harvest of Sorrow" where it has been estimated up to 20 to 30 million people died in Ukraine and other places in Russia from starvation from Stalin stealing wheat and other food from his people, but I'm pretty sure the descendants of those that went through it haven't forgotten.
To be honest, I'm not surprised by the constant wars and conflicts in this world but more surprised by the lack of it since WWII. Often those in power rarely are happy with the wealth and comfort that such power (and money) provides for them and instead of being content with what they have they more often than not seek dominance over those who they do not already have dominance over. And the lose of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of lives of soldiers under their command and the lands they invade are a small price to pay if it helps cement a bigger place in the history books for them.
The only thing I imagine prevents more wars from happening since WWII is the existence of nuclear weapons, but I believe that as new leaders from various countries start coming on the scene in the coming decades the risk of nuclear war is going to be less of a deterrent than it use to be since it is much more difficult to get one's place in the history books (and/or elevate your country to "super power status) without invading other countries that are unlikely able to stop your own armies. Whether this will increase the chances of nuclear conflict then it has in the past remains to be seen, but something tells me that either those that are planning on invading other countries don't think the US and her allies will resort to nuclear weapons if they do invade or perhaps they just no longer care.
In a way I would like to see that happen but I have a feeling that is unlikely to happen. Putin is incredibly paranoid and I don't think anyone that doesn't like him can get anywhere near him. On top of that, it is hard to say what would happen in Russia if someone else seized power. It is hard to imagine someone worse than Putin, but there exist the possibility if Putin wasn't in charge then whomever replaced him might be just as bad.
I guess it is just best to hope that whatever the results of the conflict in Ukraine is that it puts a wet blanket on Putin's/Russia's dream of taking over other countries and rebuilding something like the former USSR. Of course even that might be to much to hope for.....and even if that happens there is still the problems with China's plan on more or least trying to do the same thing.
My guess is that the size of their entry in Who's Who or a history book is probably not their main motivation, but ego is certainly a factor.
The main thing is power and its attendant benefits -- cash, land, population, control, etc. How does this apply to Putin's case? He already has tons of cash, land, population, control, etc., so it isn't clear to me how wrecking Ukraine would benefit him and his various apparatchiks. Has he been taking steroids? Is he suffering from raging hormones? Is he mentally unstable? Is there some sort of obscure economic motive here? Ukraine is a major grain producer; so is Russia. Maybe Putin wants an even bigger share of food commodity markets? (I'm grasping at straws here)
..which tells what kind of a clusterfuck and a brainfart this "special military operation" has been.
Quoting dclements
China has a frontline seat into looking how the US and the West respond to these kinds of actions. And what ought to be noted that Taiwan (or the Republic of China) is for the US a Major non-NATO Ally. That means it will respond far more aggressively to defend Taiwan than with Ukraine.
Quoting dclements
If you mean when Russia attacked in 2014, yes. If you refer to the current "special military operation", then I'm not so sure.
Absolutely. That's why Putin created the World Bank, IMF, G7, WEF, WTO, NATO, EU, Twitter, Facebook, etc., etc. which, incidentally, all are headquartered in Russia and under Putin's total control.
All he now needs to fulfill his long-cherished dream of world-domination is to get his hands on a few Ukrainian cities transformed into rubble ...
I think an additional reason for the invasion is to wreck the economy of Ukraine, and control it so that it will not seek, and will not get, membership in either the EU or NATO. Whether that strategy will pay off for Putin remains to be seen. Putin would not want either organization to have an even larger presence on Russia's borders than they already have,
I still tend to believe that Russia would have taken no action if its demands had been met from the start. When Putin said that Russia had no intention to invade, he was being truthful. That’s why he said it would depend on the situation on the ground, i.e., on his requests being met. Unfortunately, the West pretended not to get the message despite claiming that it had first-class intelligence on Russia’s every move.
So, basically, the West, i.e., US & UK, have been arming and training the Ukrainians for years against a Russian invasion, without doing absolutely anything to prevent the invasion. And that’s because they refused to give up their plans of unlimited eastward expansion. Ukraine has been a pawn on the West’s chessboard and is now paying the price for it!
I’m not sure destroying Ukraine’s economy to delay NATO or EU membership would be one of Putin’s objectives as the joining process would take years anyway. On the other hand, a destroyed Ukrainian economy and infrastructure will mean massive investments and virtual takeover by the West, probably in collaboration with local oligarchs and corrupt politicians, i.e., a repetition of the 1990’s, only worse than before, making Ukraine (or that part of it not under Russian control) totally dependent on the West.
What are your premises for such a conclusion?
I think it's self-explanatory. Why would Russia invade Ukraine if it had no reason to do so?
PS You can google the Finnish translation if you don't understand ... :wink:
How is that explaining any valid premises for your conclusion? You conclude that: Quoting Apollodorus
How do you know this? This would require you to first assume that any will to restore Russian empire borders are false. It requires a premise that assure that there will be no invasion whatsoever. There's absolutely zero evidence that Russia would abstain from invading if their demands were met, because the empire hypothesis still leads to invasion. The empire hypothesis is still the most likely one because it establishes a motive for Putin that is supported by all acts taken so far. Nato expansion into Ukraine would have meant Russia could never "reconnect" it to the empire. So the invasion is a desperate act to do so before that happened. It has nothing to do with security, it has to do with Nato intentionally or unintentionally standing in the way of Russia's attempt to expand back to old borders.
Because this hypothesis has validity to it and cannot be dismissed without clear evidence to the contrary. You might not agree with it, but it still means there's another hypothesis that doesn't compute with yours, therefore, you need to present premises that counter this and support your own conclusion.
So,
How are you sure that the demands are in any way truth and not part of the propaganda and a disinformation campaign? Taking Russias word at face value is NOT a valid premise, regardless of how logical you believe it is.
On the contrary, there is no requirement, logical, legal, or otherwise, to assume that there might be "a will to restore Russian empire borders" in the first place! :grin:
Again, can you please provide more substance for your conclusion? Stop trying to sidestep things like you always do. I'm waiting for you to answer this:
Quoting Christoffer
A few months ago I was talking to my older brother who works for the US government as a translator about the issue of why China is so fired up about trying to retake Taiwan. He thought about the it and made a remark about the age of Xi Jinping being 68 years old (close to the same old as that my brother is) and that "men around that age" are often of a mind set of wondering what kind of what mark that they will leave on the world and they are often desperate to use whatever time/resources they have at their disposal to complete any unfinished business before they pass from this world to the next.
Putin is 69 years old so I think it is a given that if this issue could apply to Xi Jinping then it could apply to Putin as well. In a way it may sound like a trivial issue since it might not even be true, however if it is true and it is something that is effecting Putin's thinking then it may likely been one of the factors for going through with the invasion, and it may be one of the reason's he is willing to keep doubling up the risks even if things are not going according to plan. In a way it is not all that different then how some of the minds of young male teenagers think when they are starting to become closer to being an adult, for them it feels like their really is no real tomorrow for them (or any tomorrow they really want to be a part of) so taking any kind of risk, even dangerous ones like taking drugs or life threatening stunts, can be justified in their minds since the consequences of not taking such incredible gambles is worse then if they take them.
Putin is one of the riches people in the world and perhaps could be the riches person in the world, but all that money and power won't help him when he is no longer around. I could be wrong but I think if Russia tried to take over Ukraine covertly ( use poison or assassinate their president and other leaders who might oppose them, use bribes and spies to install their own operatives in order to take over positions of power, etc.) it might have had a better chance of working and/or been easier then is what is going on now. But that would have taken more time and wouldn't have been as dramatic as getting Ukraine to capitulate through a show of force, even "IF" the chances of getting Ukraine to ever capitulate where very slim to none from the beginning.
I could be wrong, but I think Putin may have gone from a cold calculating/insidious ex-KGB monster he once was to something more like a reckless/impetuous teenager that wants/needs immediate results much like a spoil kid often behaves. Whatever he really wants I believe it is something that can not easily be gotten with money and it is unlikely that for a man of his age he can waste a lot of time getting it in the old time consuming underhanded way he might have been able to when he was younger.
Also it is plausible the longer he waited to invade Ukraine the harder it might be to overwhelm them with a show of force, similar to the problem with China in that the more time China uses to get ready to invade Taiwan the more time the US and Taiwan has to prepare for said invasion and make it even more difficult for them if they do decide to invade.
I think you have some serious comprehension problems there. My exact words were:
Quoting Apollodorus
As stated already, there is no logical requirement to assume that everything Russia says is "propaganda" any more than it is to assume that everything America (or Finland) says is propaganda.
I'm not going to keep repeating myself just because you've got nothing else to do ....
Yes.
The West is so used to acting in bad faith that they cannot even conceive that someone else would not do the same.
I think the main reasons why so many people have such difficulty understanding Putin are these:
1. The very concept of "benevolent ruler" has become unintelligible to them. To them, it's a contradiction in terms. They do not believe that a benevolent ruler can even exist.
2. They are so used to acting in bad faith that they cannot even imagine that someone else might not.
For both of these, democarcy is to blame. Democracy effectively absolves everyone (the voters and the elected) from any and all responsibility for the situation in the election jurisdiction, on account that responsibility is so dispersed that no single person can be meaningfully held responsible for anything.
Secondly, it encourages people to think in simplistic black and white terms, us vs. them. Thirdly, it lowers the political discourse onto the level of a battle of wills, with little or no consideration given to the quality of the proposals of each party. Fourthy, and most perniciously, it teaches people to understand only one thing: lethal force.
Taiwan is pretty much the world's most important factory of semiconductors. Whoever has Taiwan has the say over one of the most important commodities in the world.
Who wouldn't want that?!
Absolutely correct. Who had the largest empire in history with colonies all over the world, plus millions of black slaves and Indian, Chinese, and Irish servants? Britain, not Russia!
And isn't the EU trying to rebuild the Roman Empire?
The whole blame-game accusing Russia of "imperialist" intentions is clearly designed to smokescreen the West's own imperialist actions. After all, it's NATO and the EU that have been constantly expanding, not Russia.
Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia
Enlargement of the European Union - Wikipedia
Union for the Mediterranean - Wikipedia
I think it is almost a given that things are not really going to plan if Putin and those that support him in Russia where really hoping for Ukraine to capitulate or roll over after a small/quick invasion into their capital and major cities. However since it is plausible that the mindset of those in command of the Russia forces is one where they are willing to lose/sacrifice a lot of their men and resources in order to achieve their objectives, they might still be able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat just yet.
From what little I know of the conflict it sounds like they have already lost around 10% to 20% of their forces from either being killed, captured, or wounded and I'm guessing that their loses in vehicles could be around the same number. Supposedly they are planning on replenishing such numbers with reservist in Russia and possibly from mercenaries from Syria and the Middle East.
I think the long term problem for them is if they continue to incur such loses in the future as they have in the last few weeks (and if the Ukraine resistance shows no signs of weakening) it might start getting harder and harder to keep deploying more men and resources to the region for them. Of course, it is likely those who are fighting the Russians hope eventually happens.
I don't know how well the propaganda war is going for them at home but I imagine they are doing everything they can in order to sort of "sugar coat" the issue for the people back in Russia. It is weird but sometimes if you can make people believe there is no real war going on and/or that your winning a war when you are actually losing, things may not seem so bad for those in Russia who don't really know what is going on. Here in the West many of us watching videos of Russian vehicles being destroyed, building being blown up, and civilians getting killed know that the conditions in Ukraine are mostly likely like hell for both the Ukrainians left there and the unlucky Russians sent in there to fight them.
Only time will tell whether the last few weeks where just a minor SNAFU/setback for the Russian military which they are able to overcome or if it will be part of are larger ongoing cluster you know what where the Russians are unable to maintain their occupation.
Quoting ssu
Yeah it is kind of ironic that the US has stated that it is willing to protect Taiwan from China, but is unwilling to do the same for Ukraine because we are afraid of triggering "World War III". If we went to defend Taiwan from China then it is almost a given that it could escalate the war much the same way as if we did go in to help Ukraine. I think the only difference is that in the mind of those in power in the US we have been aware of this issue for a longer time and more prepared (perhaps more in a mental sense than anything else) if this actually happens. However to me it really isn't all that different.
Quoting ssu
To be honest I'm not so sure either, but my guess is that Taiwan has been threaten for decades now by China of a possible invasion where as Ukraine it has been only a few years that this has been going on. As far as I know Russia really hasn't up until now threaten Ukraine with invasion so in their minds they haven't really considered the possibility of war with one of the biggest militaries in the world, so i guessing they haven't planned for it the same way as Taiwan has had to do.
Perhaps there really isn't that much of a difference, however there still is a body of water between them and mainland China and of course it is almost a given they will get more support from the US and her allies if China does try to invade, so I guess those are still two advantages they have going for them.
How is this relevant to what I asked for? I asked for support in premises for your conclusion.
My example of propaganda has to do with a possible counter to your conclusion that can render it false. But you continue to just say the same thing as if it is true because you believe it to be true.
Quoting Apollodorus
Your beliefs don't mean anything, they are irrelevant if you have nothing to support your conclusion with. You haven't even provided an inductive argument for it. You just say it and then continue based on that assumption being true.
Provide support for the conclusion, please. I'm thinking that on a philosophy forum we break down each other's arguments in order to spot weaknesses. If I explain that your initial conclusion, the assumption, is nothing but your belief without any premises to support it, then you need to show a stronger argument in order to support your reasoning.
From the guidelines of the forum:
This is why I ask you to expand your conclusion with better support. It's impossible to continue a discussion if the only way to do so is to first assume your initial conclusion to be true first. So, start at the beginning and answer these questions:
How do you know for a fact that Russia would have taken no action if the demands had been met from the start? How can you be sure that the demands weren't just part of the lies to hide the true intentions? How do you know that the motivation is exactly how you propose it and not anything other, like the empire expansion hypothesis (which would have led to an invasion anyway)?
Well, if you want to go by the "forum rules", perhaps you ought to apply them to yourself first ... :smile:
For your rhetorical "question" to have any merit, you would need to show that there was a logical necessity to assume that there might be "a will to restore Russian empire borders". You haven't shown that, so you're wasting your time.
As I said, in historical terms, the West is much more likely than Russia to have imperialist intentions.
And, anyway, Ukraine was Russia even before the Russian Empire.
From the 9th century, Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine (which simply means “borderland”) were one country which was known as “Rus-land” or “Land of the Rus(sians)” (????????? ?????, rus?ska? zeml?), and which became the core of the Russian Empire:
Kievan Rus - Wikipedia
Please refer to the other thread (Ukraine crisis) where I discussed this in detail, should you have any further questions.
Or try reading some history instead of baseless pro-NATO propaganda .... :wink:
I can understand the confusion, but try to understand that sometimes when a thread gets to be 80+ pages long and there seems to be no real single subject that posters are talking about it starts becoming hard to know what the discussion is about.
When I started this thread i was hoping to focus on the "larger" issues and perhaps less of the ongoing day to day issues that may be currently going on such as the refugee crisis, civilians being bomb/attacked, whom killed whom, etc. etc. I know those are all real issues in an ongoing war, but they may not help us get a clearer picture at some of the larger forces at play. And that is why I created this thread to address.
[quote="Apollodorus;664459" ]BTW, which countries is Russia "willing to occupy" and how have you "realized" this? [/quote]
IMHO, I believe Putin and those that support him in Russia would be more than happy to reintegrate any and all former Warsaw Pact (that are currently on less then friendly terms with Russia) back into the "loving" arms of mother Russia and for all of them and Russia to create a USSR 2.0.
That may seem either laughable or merely wishful thinking for those in power in Russia since up until a few weeks it was a given that Russia won't be willing to risk World War III in order to take over any former Warsaw countries through military force. Of course, there is the problem for Russia that many of these countries are not exactly happy to become merely "satellite states" (countries that were meant to bear the brunt of a attack if NATO tries to fight Russia) again and to be ruled by puppet governments controlled by Russian.
Part of this comes from the fact that China is considering doing something similar on the other side of the world and trying to expand it's base of influence. If you knew about that issue you might be able to understand some of the parallel developments/problems with that and things happening in Russia but that is a whole other can of worms that I shouldn't get into on this thread. If you would like to know more there is a thread I created where I discussed this issue with other forum members you can go check out:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12136/what-are-odds-that-in-the-near-future-there-will-be-a-conflict-with-china/p1
For now I think it is safe to say that both the USSR,...oops I mean Russia wants to expand it's base of power in the world in order to become a super power that can rival the US and her allies and China is trying to do the same thing as well. While China's and Russia's goals and situation are not exactly the same, I think it is safe to say that they are not all that different.
It has been kind of interesting how some in the republican party have become kind of cozy with Putin and those that support his pro-USSR agenda. I'm believe it is a combination of them lately liking to say things that are nor politically correct (likely Trump always does) and a kind of mentality that Putin/Russia is no longer really any threat. Of course it is unlikely that it is going to be easy to stay that way after the war with Ukraine started (which right now feels like it happened months ago). Being a politician that is/was cozy with Russia and Putin is kind of like in one of those science fiction where they are exploring another planet and they come across some cute and fuzzy creatures that look like they might make great pet. However once you get too close they bear their razor sharp fangs and coming at you in the hopes that they can turn you into your dinner.
As far as I can tell, Russia has been more or less been ostracized from the West and any politician that either has said nice things about Putin and or Russia will be questioned as to "whom" their actual loyalty lies with. I could be wrong but I don't think anyone wants to be thought of as a possible "manchurian candidate" at the present time. I believe at least we don't have to worry about Lindsey Graham having this issue as for Tucker Carlson... I'm not so sure.
Sen. Lindsey Graham's apparent call for Putin to be assassinated draws backlash
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/04/1084548984/lindsey-graham-putin
How Russia Is Using Tucker Carlson in its Propaganda
https://www.newsweek.com/how-russia-using-tucker-carlson-propaganda-pawn-1687402
I could be wrong but I believe once upon a time the republican party was pretty good at having a unified message/ideology and they where not as fragmented as the democrats were at that time. Lately it is hard to know what they really stand for other than just trying to be reelected.
The funny thing is that, historically, the term "imperialism" has been used in reference to 1800's Britain and France, and continues to be mainly associated with the West:
Imperialism - Wikipedia
I think political, economic, and considering NATO, military dominance today is primarily exerted by the West, not by Russia. Any discussion that fails to take this into account is bound to be biased and not particularly balanced, IMO.
The historical background of the conflict in Ukraine needs to include Stalin's starvation of the country, where the agenda to destroy the Kulaks was combined with exerting central control over the 'Soviets.' It should be remembered that Ukraine was the kick off of the Holocaust, where the Nazi idea that Jews were behind Communism became a rule of engagement in Operation Barbarossa. The USSR only recognized a general loss of "innocent people" rather than a specific genocide after the war.
The policy of erasure and denial of people in Ukraine has been a Cheka legacy since the Bolshevik revolution.
With the politics of the Cold War leading to the Iron Curtain and the formation of NATO, Putin has taken up the language of ultranationalists to deny Ukrainian nationality now that the USSR and the Warsaw Pact no longer exists. Putin forgot to hold a referendum in Ukraine on the matter.
Taiwan emerged on the other side of this Cold War dynamic as a resistance to Communism. The situation is very different in economic terms because China is integrated with production on a global scale where Russia is a big player in only a few industries.
I agree, but wanting to take something and actually taking it are two different things. I sure China would love to take over Taiwan's semiconductor making facilities but they would most likely have to invade Taiwan in order for them to have any hope in getting them. The problem with that such an invasion would likely be more costly and difficult than the one in Ukraine and it is highly likely that even "IF" they could capture such facilities that someone would deliberately blow them up or at least destroy most of the multi-million dollar equipment in order so that China can not use them.
In the words of Helmuth von Moltke "No Plan Survives First Contact With the Enemy". I like to think Putin's plan to easily take over Ukraine is a text-book example of this issue.
No Plan Survives Contact With the Enemy
https://bootcampmilitaryfitnessinstitute.com/military-and-outdoor-fitness-articles/no-plan-survives-contact-with-the-enemy/
The Trump wing of the GOP gets it ideas from Steve Bannon's fusion of identification politics in the U.S with a foreign policy based upon weakening the EU.
Tucker Carlson is merely the lipstick on the pig.
That's called a tu quoque fallacy.
I asked you to provide some support for your belief so that the rest of your argument can be built upon it. But you clearly don't seem to understand why you have to.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
If people were to ask you to explain every one of your pronouncements, it'd take a whole separate forum - with Finnish translation attached!
The basis for my belief ought to be evident from the context and from my previous posts. It isn't my fault that you still don't understand. At any rate, you may rest assured that I'm not going to waste my time with another discussion on it.
And no, I don't need to assume that everything Russia says is "propaganda" at all. That is just part of your usual repertoire of weasel words and straw men.
So you have nothing as a support for what you say. You can't argue without fallacies. And you are unable to engage in a discussion through a more proper philosophical scrutiny.
Quoting Apollodorus
Or you can start with supporting your own conclusion first so there can be a proper discussion and not some evangelical parrot game from you.
I asked nicely to let you provide support for what you say but it seems impossible for you to reach that point. You just seem to be utterly uneducated in philosophical practice when asked for it. Why should anyone take you seriously?
Well, you can say whatever you like, but I for one think it is irrational to blame others for your failure to understand simple statements that have been explained to you already.
You said that what I believe doesn’t matter. If that’s the case, then I think it would be more logically consistent for you to ignore my statement than to go on and on about it, ad nauseam.
Incidentally, as a matter of principle, you shouldn’t get upset just because someone’s views differ from yours. The whole purpose of discussion forums is to have a plurality of views, not to throw temper tantrums when others disagree with you.
It’s understandable to be upset that Zelensky is losing, but (1) it isn’t my fault, (2) I don’t see why this is of concern to Finland, and (3) according to some, Zelensky is a thug as are the oligarchs behind him, as explained on the other thread, which is why a more balanced, rational, and less emotional, analysis would be preferable.
As regards Putin’s alleged intention to rebuild the borders of the Russian Empire, (a) I see no evidence to support that claim and (b) as already explained, Ukraine has always been part of Russia, both Ukraine and Russia having been part of the same territory called Russia or “Land of the Rus(sians)” (????????? ?????, rus?ska? zeml?), a.k.a. “Kievan Rus”.
The fact is that Ukraine became separated from Russia only after being invaded and occupied by foreign powers (Mongols, Lithuanians, Poles). It follows that Putin has a point and his views need to be taken into consideration even if we disagree with his actions. IMO a discussion based exclusively on the views of countries like Finland (or any others) that have nothing to do with Ukraine is not a proper discussion. But if you think it is, go ahead, I’m not holding you back …. :smile:
You have had numerous times to provide support for the belief I asked you to support. Instead you spend post after post talking about how "obvious" your statement is. If it's so obvious, then provide support for it. Provide how it can be the only conclusion possible. Because the entire stance you have in this matter is based on that conclusion being true. So you need to provide support for it. You're not on "unsupported opinion forum" you are on a philosophy forum. Me asking you to clarify in a rational way how a conclusion you use as a foundation for everything is pretty much in line with what this forum is supposed to be.
What's irrational is that you can't even provide such support. You just have opinions and opinions mean nothing without any kind of rational support for it.
Quoting Apollodorus
Instead of you tu quoquo yourself out of every kind of breakdown of your logic, maybe you could try and focus that energy into a proper argument instead?
Quoting Apollodorus
Or you could provide support for your conclusion instead of treating this forum as some opinion wall where people shouldn't counter your opinions with such radical ideas as asking "what's your support for that opinion?" This is the third part of your post that basically just tries to turn this around against me and how I should just supposedly accept your opinion as some kind of valid input regardless of post after post never ever providing anything as a foundation for it.
Quoting Apollodorus
Nothing of this has anything to do with what I requested and it just reads as low-quality nonsense. This is the fourth segment of your post that tries to derail from what I asked for.
Quoting Apollodorus
Here you try, once again, to derail by focusing on my counter-argument first. We can go into that in detail once we've established any kind of support for your conclusion. I brought that perspective up because it's a hypothesis that counters your conclusion, and since you won't support your own conclusion, then we have this balance of two hypotheses that both need support in order to reach what's likely true.
So once again, I ask you to provide a foundation for your initial conclusion. Burden of proof please. You start with a claim, a conclusion, I ask you to clarify, expand and provide further support for it, you ignore, derail and try to turn this against me instead of providing what I asked for. Please do some fucking philosophy instead of this low-quality nonsense you're trying.
Here's your conclusion again, please provide support for it.
Quoting Apollodorus
Try to do it without getting distracted by my presence. I know it's hard, I know it's a challenge to do so as it seems that's the only thing you're capable of, but please prove to me that you can actually make some proper arguments. That's what I'm asking for.
The Warsaw Pact was an alliance between the USSR (aka the Soviet Union) and several countries that were never in the Soviet Union, even if they were expected to submit to its wishes. Do you mean the former Soviet republics (Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) or are you actually saying that Putin wants to somehow integrate the Warsaw Pact countries (Albania, Bulgaria, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the eastern part of Germany) into a single country along with Russia and presumably all the former Soviet republics as well?
You may not be aware of it, but doing philosophy is precisely what I'm trying to do.
Problem, you see, is that in order to philosophize you need to have the facts first, otherwise it's all just empty speculation.
If you ignore the facts and dictate to others what they should think, that's an approach that isn't going to get you very far.
My advice would be to acquaint yourself with the facts, especially established and well-known historical facts, first, and then attempt to philosophize.
If you knew the facts, then I'm sure you'd agree with me that Putin has got a point. To take the example of a trial in a court of law, you'd need to take into consideration both sides, not just one. Very simple and easy to understand, really.
So, demonstrate (a) that you have knowledge of the relevant historical facts and (b) that you are willing to engage in an objective and balanced conversation. If not, then there is nothing I can do for you ....
:rofl:
Quoting Apollodorus
So when I ask for that, for your initial conclusion, it doesn't apply?
You do know that philosophy also requires logic, rational deduction and induction? As well as having as little bias and fewer fallacies as possible when providing an argument?
Quoting Apollodorus
So what are you doing then? You start out with a conclusion and I ask you for evidence or rational support to back that conclusion up, then your answer is that I shouldn't dictate anything?
Are you fucking serious? :rofl:
Quoting Apollodorus
What facts? I asked for facts and support for your conclusion, you provide jack shit of anything. The only thing your doing is trying to talk around failing to provide a proper argument for your conclusion.
I'm still waiting.
Quoting Apollodorus
That's not what you said though. You are not considering both sides:
Quoting Apollodorus
If that's the only thing you had to say in court, the judges, jury and people would laugh you out of the legal system. Then saying "if you all knew the facts, then you would view what I say as true".
You're like,"If you all knew the facts, you'd know that the killer had a point and when he says that he wasn't going to kill the victim, then he was truthful, I promise, I know this because I know the facts"
Then we ask "What facts? Make a proper argument for your conclusion and we can continue" and you reply, "If you all knew the facts as I do, you would agree with me that the killer has got a point. We have to consider both the killer and the victims side in this, it's very easy to understand really".
Give me a fucking break. This is just stupid. :rofl:
Quoting Apollodorus
Give me a proper argument for the conclusion you've made. Stop trying to bullshit your way out of normal philosophical practice when asked to provide it.
I'm open for discussion, but if you start with a conclusion and I ask for clarification and support for that conclusion, whatever my stance in the discussion is irrelevant if you can't support your own initial conclusion first, then we can go into my counter-argument to your argument.
Demanding me to do anything and trying to ignore your own responsibility as an interlocutor, just means you won't take responsibility for your part in a philosophical discussion while demanding that others should take more responsibility than you. This is how a child rationalizes their status.
You simply don't know what you're talking about.
Very interesting. However, not particularly coherent or convincing, to be honest.
The way I see it, it is imperative to understand that this isn’t about your opinion but about facts. And the crucial fact is that NATO and the EU have been expanding for decades, not Russia.
Enlargement of NATO – Wikipedia
Enlargement of the European Union – Wikipedia
Incidentally, Tomas Ries, associate professor at the Swedish National Defence College, has said:
In contrast, from what I see, you expect us to assume that everything that Russia says is “propaganda” and everything that America says is the pure and unalloyed gospel truth. But the fact is that America does use propaganda on a regular basis:
Propaganda in the United States – Wikipedia
It certainly seems to have worked on you. In any case, an essential step toward the correct understanding of the current international situation would be to acknowledge that the root cause of the problem is not Russian aggression but Western imperialism, the former being a mere reaction to the latter.
So, basically, what you seem to be arguing is that Russia should not be allowed to react but must always allow itself to be acted on by America and its instruments of foreign policy like NATO and the EU, in any way or ways that Washington or Wall Street fancy .... :smile:
What you say is may be likely true, but from what I understand it hardly changes the dynamics of the issue. While it may be true that the US and her allies have more or less military dominance over most of the world and it is a given that any country (or countries) that are not happy about it may seek to undermined it for their own reason, I don't think such an issue in any way can help justify Russia and/or China from trying to invade other countries.
I'm not saying that the US and her allies are the "good guys" and Russia, China, and/or anyone else not happy with the West are the "bad guys" as it is a given that at any given moment if those in power in the West are asleep at the switch that other powers will take advantage of it. What I am saying is that when these countries overplay their hand in trying to undermine the West and/or seize more power for themselves through military means that they should expect pushback or retaliation from the US and her allies. I think you can agree on that.
I know that it would be next to impossible for Russia to re-integrate all or perhaps even most of the former Warsaw Pact countries into something like the former USSR, but that doesn't mean that those in power in Russia wouldn't want to do it's best are trying to get some of those countries back into their control by helping install leaders that are more friendly to Russia.
For what little I know about the issue, I think it is a given that while some people in Russia do want to return Russia back to it's glory days of being something like what the former USSR was I don't think they are really willing to use military action in each country to regain all of them. Ukraine may be the exception since some of those in Russia still consider it part of Russia. I guess sort of in a way like how in the US when the South separated from North, the North went to war to retake it. But since Ukraine in most ways is a separate country with it's own government, it really isn't a break way province from Russia or at least that is how it looks like for the rest of the world.
At any rate I'm sure Russia would like to install a puppet government (or any kind of government friendly to Russia) in Ukraine in any of the former Warsaw Pact countries and even in Western countries as well if they are able to. And although I could be wrong but I believe China has a similar agenda of it's own in order to further their own plans.
That you for pointing this issue out for me. The only things I remember reading anything similar about this issue was that on the Eastern side of the conflict in WWII many countries readily welcomed the Nazi's when they came in and "liberated" their countries from Stalin and possibly saved some of them from dying from starvation from what I believe use to be called the "Harvest of Sorrow", which was a plan where Stalin would steal wheat and other food from countries like Ukraine which Stain would turn around and sell it to the West in order to do things like to help fund his government, build up is military, and create factories to start building Russia industrial complex which hardly existed when he gained power. My guess as to why he did this was that Russia didn't have much of anything to export to Western countries so he had to come up with some "creative" way to jump start Russia's economy, even if it cost millions of people their lives.
The other thing I remember reading about the Eastern side of German conflict was that it was in many ways more brutal than on the Western conflict. I believe there was an issue when either the Russian or Germans would take control of a town they would not only install people in power that supported them, but they would often round up dozens of citizens suspected of being supporters of the other side and would shot them and leave their bodies out as a warning to others as to what will happen to them if they too were found to be supporting the enemy. According to one German soldier this started partly because the Russians had a policy to execute politicians and any citizens that where found to be helping the Germans and when his unit (and possibly other units like his) retook towns where the Russians did this, the decided to round up anyone they suspected of helping the Russians do this to their friends (ie captured German soldiers when they took over the town) and kill them in the same manner. I guess what I'm trying to say is that for a while each side didn't really have much of advantage over another so it is believed some of those that were fighting started resorting to more, and more brutal tactics in order to demoralize the enemy which of course often cause regular soldiers (who may have not really desired to resort to such means) become more brutal themselves, because they were fighting an enemy they believed was inhuman.
Also on top of that issue there was something similar to a civil war going on at that time. Some of the people under the control/influence of the Russia government took up arms and fought against Russian troops themselves. Of course, the Germans would sometimes take advantage of this and use such people to set up friendly governments or support groups for their side, but it also would cause the Russians who had to fight both the Germans and insurgent "Russians" (or whatever country these citizens were in) to have to be a bit heavy handed since the were basically fighting both an invasion by the Germans an a civil war with their fellow country men from within.
This might help in explaining why it possible for Russia and countries that "supported them" to possibly lose more than 25,000,000 people during WWII (many more than any other country in the war) since a lot of those casualties may have been caused by them killing each other. And I believe that number doesn't include those that died do the Harvest of Sorrow. To be honest now that I think of it, I find it hard to fathom how any society can survive such loses/sorrow and find a way to continue on.
Sorry to but in but I'm unaware of how Zelesky may be a thug as you say. Is it possible for you to explain where you have come to this conclusion?
To be honest the only thing I know about him was that he was a comedian before becoming the president of Ukraine and now that his country has been invaded he is trying to rally his country to fight against the Russians that him and many of his people see as invaders. If I was to take a guess he might be as corrupt and/or as incompetent as any other Western leader, but I think the fact that he just didn't grab a suitcase full of money and get the first flight out of there when the fighting broke out (which is what is often expected of most Western, Eastern, and other leaders in the world) i believe says something positive about him. But then again I could be wrong since as I said, I don't really know much about him.
Also I think it is a bit..premature to say either Russia or Ukraine is really "winning". Before the war, It was assumed in the West that if Russia did invade that almost all major cities in Ukraine would have already fallen by now, but it would be difficult for Russia to occupy it (much like the US tried to do in the middle eastern countries for the last couple of decades) if they had to deal with a well armed and organized insurgency. Since Ukrainians have doing exceptionally good so far, it is hard to imagine that even "IF" the Russians are able to get control of many of the major cities that they won't have a issue with any Ukrainian resistance after that. I guess in the end the question is going to be how long can each side deal with any attrition they are facing before they have to give in.
From where I'm sitting things are not looking that bad of the Ukrainians, even if they are suffering from thousands of civilian casualties. For them, there military losses are not completely debilitating (they are suffering about the same number as they Russians that invaded are) and I believe almost all projections before the invasion assumed that the Ukrainian would likely lose twice the number as the Russians since that is what often happens when a smaller army tries to hold off a larger army that is at least as well equipped (it was assumed the Russians would be better equipped but that may not be true)
Quoting Apollodorus
Ok, you might have a point in that there may be some truth to this issue and that Putin (and those that support him) see this as more as a civil war than a war between two countries, but does that really justify his actions or wise for him to invade?
I don't know if your aware of this but there is a somewhat similar issue with China. It was what it calls a "breakaway province" know as Taiwan and it has been threatening Taiwan with military action if it is unwilling to rejoin China peacefully. I believe for over 50 years now Taiwan has more or less been it's own independent country since the Chinese government fled mainland after the communist took it over.
Ever though it has been over 50 years now, still China still sees Taiwan as a rogue province that is just unwilling to properly accept Chinese rule over it.
In this instance do you believe China has the right to use military action in order to take them over and if so do you think the US, Japan, and any of her allies have to interfere in such a war?
Also what about any other country that has a military and can try to take of lands from weaker countries that were once part of their own empire at one time. If it is "ok" for either Russia and/or China to do this why wouldn't be "ok" for any quasi-world super power to just do whatever it wants, wouldn't green lighting any or all such wars just be a signal to the world that only might makes right and international rights and laws have become worthless?
I agree that in an ideal world no country should be invaded by another. In fact, in an ideal world there would be no need for countries to take such an action.
Unfortunately, the world is not ideal and invasions do happen: Pakistan’s invasion of Kashmir (1947), China’s invasion of Tibet (1951), China’s invasion of India (1962), Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus (1974), America’s invasion of Iraq (2003), Turkey’s invasion of Syria (2019), etc., etc.
What is particularly interesting is that very little if any action was taken by the international community in response to the above (and many other) invasions. So, what makes Ukraine different?
I think part of the answer is that the West (US and UK in particular) has long seen Russia as an economic and military rival to be contained and, as far as possible, to be brought under Western economic, financial, and political dominance. Additionally, Russia’s military operation in Ukraine frustrates NATO’s and the EU’s expansion plans.
Another factor that makes Ukraine different is the media coverage and the public response to it. Since the pandemic and the lockdowns, growing numbers of people have turned to the news and social media and have become susceptible to political and ideological influence or manipulation.
Zelensky himself is a media man and TV actor who for many years has used the media to sell himself and his narrative. His predecessor Poroshenko has described Zelensky as a “puppet of (oligarch) Kolomoisky” and his election as “the biggest electoral fraud in Ukrainian history”.
Moreover,
This does not necessarily justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine - it certainly doesn't justify bombing innocent and unarmed civilians - but it raises some pertinent questions concerning Zelensky’s legitimacy and the accuracy of the way the events are being presented to the public by the Western media.
Incidentally, the EU has announced a €1.2 billion loans package to Ukraine, in addition to €500 million in humanitarian aid and further hundreds of millions in military aid from the EU and US. I think it is safe to assume that in a country with corruption levels like those of Ukraine, a large part of that will end up in the wrong hands (or pockets).
In any case, instead of having one economic and military bloc constantly expanding at the expense of others, I think it would make more sense to have some kind of balance of power in the region and in the world. Otherwise there is a real danger that Western imperialism – economic, financial, military, political, and cultural - will lead to total world dominance by the US and its client states.
In the short term, the West’s actions can only result in Russia turning to China and leaving the latter in a much stronger position than before vis-à-vis the West.
China Sees at Least One Winner Emerging From Ukraine War: China – New York Times
And yes, for a more complete picture it is important to look at it from various perspectives, including the Russian one .... :smile:
It is difficult for me as well.
Whatever one might make of the brutal methods of the USSR, Putin's close connection to the Russian Orthodox Church should not go unnoticed.
That element does not come into play with bombing Syrians and Chechens of another faith. It is front and center of the message of what is going on in Ukraine.
It's not clear, though, whether China wants Taiwan for itself, or whether they just want that Taiwan wouldn't come into US' hands. Because it's questionable how long Taiwan can maintain relative independence, even as it has ties both to China and the US. Would China still want Taiwan if there would be no US or similar power? Perhaps not.
The religious theme not often mentioned in regard to the recent Ukr. crisis. But this conflict isn't just NATO/the West vs. Russia, it's also Western vs. Eastern Christianity. It's the Great Schism that goes back a thousand years.
Instead of seeing it in terms of "total world dominance by the US and its client states" we can see it in terms of "total world dominance by consumerism and bad faith". Thus the New World Order: "The only things that matter are things that money can buy, and all else is worthless. Adjust your life goals and values accordingly or perish."
This seems to be the direction the entire mankind is heading to, and, it seems, gladly and willingly. Who can stop progress ...
The significance in the context of this invasion is the similarity of Putin's embrace of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Falangists who used the Roman Catholic Church to bring legitimacy to their fascism.
Absolutely fabulous! :100: :up:
If there's a video telling what I've tried to say, this one is it!
The only thing it left out was a) NATO's war in Kosovo and a) The Chechen Wars.
Thanks for finding that!
I suppose, we could see it that way, but if consumerism is led by America (the world's largest consumer market) then it boils down to the same thing.
Moreover, America seems to decide which economic and political systems are acceptable, i.e., which policies are in line with US economic interests, and therefore, to be promoted, and which are contrary to US interests, and therefore, to be suppressed and eliminated from the face of the earth.
Consumerism also includes the mass consumption of entertainment and news largely produced by America and disseminated by America's client states.
It may well be that mankind is "willingly" heading in this direction, but that "will" is due to ignorance of the fact that by acting on it we reduce ourselves to consuming entities chained to a self-interested system over which we have no influence or control.
The direction can be changed by raising public awareness of the situation and taking measures to counteract it.
Well for some of the following reasons: A) Ukraine is a country in Europe B) there is a chance that the war could escalate and spill over to over European countries and start a larger conventional war similar to what happened in WWI and WWII C) as far as anyone can tell in the West, Ukraine wasn't an aggressor (unlike when US fought/invaded/occupied such places as Iraq/Afghanistan) D) the invasion is being done by Russian (aka. the old USSR boogey man who was supposed to be dead already) who still has NBC (nuclear/biological/chemical) weapons - you know the kind of "weapons of mass destruction" Bush Junior ranted and raved about as to why we had to go into Iraq in order to make sure a madman such as Saddam didn't have access to them and might use them if he couldn't have his own way. Well, I could be wrong but Putin has become this notion of what Bush Jr. and the republicans where afraid of what Saddam might become if we didn't go into Iraq again and stop him. However the difference is that at the drop of a hat, Putin CAN use Russia's NBCs/"weapons of mass destruction" and unleash hell on earth is he so wishes too.
I could be wrong but I think some of the reasons I gave are a good part of why this is different than other invasions that happened in the past.
Quoting Apollodorus
You are correct that the US and her allies give push back (and sometimes undermine) Russia but they do that to ALL countries and even each other. The world nations are much like a school playground where there is a kind of pecking order and sometimes they even bully and harass each other. The only difference is there is no adult there to really supervise them so the children have to kind of supervise themselves, kind of like in lord of the flies I guess.
Quoting Apollodorus
Actually I think Russia’s military operation in Ukraine is just about the best thing that could happen to it after WWII. NATO was formed in order to defend against the big old boogey man, the former USSR, and when the USSR collapsed the meaning for it's existence almost collapsed as well. However with Russia invading Ukraine the shock of such an action has been like using a defibrillator on a dying man, it has resuscitated the reason for NATO's existence.
Even Germany is talking about the need for rebuilding it's military in order to protect themselves from potential wanton aggression, and with the current situation going on nobody seems to think that there is really no issue/problem with them doing it.
[quote="Apollodorus;667042" ]Another factor that makes Ukraine different is the media coverage and the public response to it. Since the pandemic and the lockdowns, growing numbers of people have turned to the news and social media and have become susceptible to political and ideological influence or manipulation.
Zelensky himself is a media man and TV actor who for many years has used the media to sell himself and his narrative. His predecessor Poroshenko has described Zelensky as a “puppet of (oligarch) Kolomoisky” and his election as “the biggest electoral fraud in Ukrainian history”.[/quote]
Unless Kolomoisky is the devil himself (or perhaps even if he is), I can't really see how he can be worse than Putin. Every politician through out history has always either been called someone's puppet or a lose cannon who nobody can predict what they will do next. Your either a revolutionary or someone's stooge. If Zelensky is either a revolutionary, stooge, or a con-man (which is just really a kind of stooge that somewhat behaves as a king's jester) then he is really not that different then any other Western politician who has had to take the world stage. But of course since he BEHAVES more like a western politician then a pro-Russian one that could be enough of a reason for Russia to want to take him out.
Quoting Apollodorus
Yes, in the US we are ruled by plutocratic leaders instead of one's put there through democratic means. However neither are Russia or China one's ruled through socialism but instead through autocracies.
More to the point, what do you think it would be like to like in a world ruled either by China, Russia, or the US and her allies? While it is almost a given that things in countries like the US could get worse instead of better (much like it has since the Cold War ended), but try to imagine a world where all leaders of other countries have to kowtow to the whims of either China's or Russia's leaders. I don't know if it will be exactly like in the book 1984, but I don't think it would be that much better.
More to the point if you had to choose which of the three would you rather have almost total world dominance?
Quoting Apollodorus
Putin and Xi Jinping where already taking long romantic walks together and giving each other bjobs to each other before the invasion so if they come closer together for whatever reason, it is unlikely to be that much closer than they already are.
The only thing most of the West are concern about China becoming more "powerful" (which has been an issue/fear long before the invasion) is their threat to invade Taiwan in which the war in Ukraine has all but thrown a wet blanket on those plans since it is unlikely want to go ahead and punch that tar baby since they don't want to get into the same situation as Putin has.
Everything else China is doing is either kind of moot, or it is more or less part of various ongoing issues with China which have been going on for some time. As for anyone really trusting Xi Jinping or look for his leadership to resolve anything, all I can say is that it unlikely to happen. Western politician might not be the brightest people sometimes but even they will hesitate when given a poisonous snake and asked to kiss it.
Almost ever war that has ever been fought, it almost always has something to do with religion. Of course, it has almost always also to do with territory/power/money as well. And sometimes the aspects of one are used to justify the reasons of the other, which I think in this war Putin has claimed that western Influence is corrupting Ukrainian society/leaders and they need to save their fellow brothers and sisters (which they claim they view as fellow Russians) before the taint of western corruption destroys their moral values and/or socialist values.
I will admit it has kind of the old school church mentality of "we sometimes have to kill the heathens in order to try to save some of their souls" or perhaps maybe a kind of old Manifest Destiny vibe to it where Russia has to do what Russia has to do in or to keep socialism/communism alive. My guess if I had to pick one of the two is that if this invasion is just an isolated incident then it is just the former, but if it is a part of a broader plan that involves Russia wanting to take over other territories as well then it really isn't about some kind of "brotherly love" and trying to save their culture but more about Russia trying to take whatever they can while trying to create any excuse as to why they are doing it.
I think in any war or power struggle it is kind of hard to separate the reason someone wants something as either they just want it or if they just want an adversary not to have it. It is hard to accomplish one without the other, unless one of parties decides to destroy it, such as in a kind of scorched earth policy when Saddam's troops did while leaving Kuwait or the potential leveling of a city during prolonged artillery bombardment.
Also there is the aspect of just not having something like a city or country but the actual TAKING of it from your adversary, which of itself can seem more important then the other two. I imagine a good example of this is may be Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine. For the people of Ukraine and Putin there are obvious reasons why each one want it and don't want the other side to have it, but for Putin there is an extra reason he may want it beyond any tactical advantage it can provide. The actual taking of Kyiv (as well as other major Ukraine cities) for the Russians will likely help them psychologically and make them feel a little closer to capturing most and/or all of Ukraine. However the higher the cost in casualties and lose of vehicles and other resources may lessen any boost in moral if it seems like it's a given that the cost of taking and occupying Ukraine is beyond what they can bare.
Anyways back to the issue with Taiwan and China, I think it is safe to say that whether China or the US has it (well, technically the US can't have it other then it just a friendly/pro-west in it) is really part of a larger problem which is China waning to become more of a world super power than it is. I think step one of their major plan was to gain money, power, and influence over a few decades (which in many ways they have already done) and use those resources in step two and three. Step two is continuing that which was done in step one, but it also involves trying to acquire that may be either friendly to China or even neutral to it but either bribing politicians (and other people), buying whatever land they can acquire and will be useful to them, and potentially engage in small wars in order to gain land or other things that are necessary for their future agenda. I believe part of this plan two is about somehow gaining Taiwan. Part three is again about continuing the actions done in one and two, but also in doing those two things is to do whatever necessary to become first the most powerful military power in Asia and then to become the most powerful country on the Earth.
So in the end, China probably give a rat's @ss about Taiwan itself, but more to the fact that if they can somehow wrestle it from western influence (by installing a pro-China/puppet government) that such an event would get them a lot closer their objective of becoming the biggest military power in Asia, and maybe just a littler closer to ruling the world.
Of course this plan is not fool proof since it was easy to figure out even when they just started in step one. In fact the only advantage with such a plan is that by trying to "grind" their way to world domination they don't seem as evil as the countries that want to use war to take over other countries as soon as they have a military big enough to do so. So instead of big outright evil they are merely insidious, which sometimes is hard to tell if it is any more insidious then the west is sometimes. However this gets more difficult when they start doing things like taking of territories, undermining other governments, bribing people, and of course getting their hand involved in small/proxy wars and/or larger wars using their own army. At this point it starts becoming more and more oblivious that China doesn't want to be just another friendly country that wants to live peacefully with everyone else but more of a country that is run by people that would like to bash in anyone's skull if that person isn't happy with the way they do things. And of course they would like to bash in the skulls of anyone they don't like for other reasons (such as the majority of Japanese people) who either they or their ancestors did something they didn't like in the past.
As a rule of thumb, I think it is safe to say it will be kind of scary for anyone in the future who has to live in a country that becomes occupied/controlled by the PRC in their bid for world domination, unless perhaps you are one of people that enjoys things like getting a cavity search on a daily basis .
Your welcome! :grin:
I was looking at the connection as way for the autocracy of the regime to be seen as serving the culture of the believers. Whatever sincerity may or not be involved, the appearance of service can be a strong element of social control. Putin seems to have been successful at getting others to think he wants what they want. The extremity of this action pulls the drop cloth off that action. The grinding destruction of what was supposed to be saved is not going back in the box before Pandora returns.
Well, I don’t think Tibet was an aggressor, or the Kurdish people who are under Turkish occupation. It seems to me that the West is applying some blatant double standards.
Also, if the West’s intention is to prevent Putin from using NBC’s, as it allegedly did in Iraq, then Ukraine is an unrelated issue.
Quoting dclements
From what I see, NATO has been constantly expanding, taking in new members like the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland in 1999, followed by others ever since. IMO it doesn’t look like a “dead man brought back to life by Putin” at all.
And Russia’s invasion of Ukraine does seem to have scuppered NATO’s plan to incorporate the country.
More to the point, as has been observed by some, Putin’s actions have put a brake on America’s plans to make Russia part of its NWO empire – at least for now.
Quoting dclements
Germany is a key European country and it makes no sense for it not to have proper armed forces like England and France. So, this was long overdue.
Incidentally, America and Russia invaded Germany in 1945. Russia left but America is still there.
Quoting dclements
There is no need for Kolomoisky to be worse. I think it’s enough for him to be like or close to Putin. And with Ukraine being next after Russia on Europe’s corruption scale, it looks like it’s perfectly OK to be corrupt as long as you are a friend of America, as can be seen from the case of Saudi Arabia and others.
Quoting dclements
I’m totally against any one power having total or almost total world dominance. My position is that each country and each continent should be free and independent. A multipolar world order is necessary to prevent the emergence of worldwide dictatorship.
It's also interesting that you think it's about facts when your conclusion looks like this:
Quoting Apollodorus
I see no facts here. Nothing about the Nato expansion is in direct relation to evaluating if Putin is being truthful or not. Something that is a fact in itself does not mean it becomes a valid premise just because you think it does. This is called "false cause" fallacy.
Basically you get this:
p1 Nato and EU has been expanding for years.
Conclusion: When Putin said Russia had no intention to invade he was being truthful.
Quoting Apollodorus
The conclusion you made is that you argued that they wouldn't have invaded if their demands had been met. But nothing of what has been said about Ukraine and surrounding the invasion has any real support in such a conclusion. All the movement of the military, all the intel that proved to be true, the video metadata showing how Putin recorded both his statements of not invading and the post-invasion speech at the same time etc. points to this invasion being planned for months. There's really not that much more than you "believing that Putin was truthful". This is the problem with your conclusion, you state that he is truthful contrary to everything that has happened, everything discovered. And if he was truthful with that, why not also with his fascination with history, his distortion of it? That would make him a delusional despot anyway, regardless of interpretation of intention. What about the leaked "manifesto"? There's too much working against the conclusion you've made for you to be certain that it is the truth other than you just believing in it to be the truth.
So, now your argument is this:
p1 Nato and EU has been expanding for years.
p2 Russia thinks Nato is a threat
Conclusion: When Putin said Russia had no intention to invade he was being truthful.
Quoting Apollodorus
So? We're talking about Russia and Putin's propaganda here. This is blatant whataboutism. But to play along for now: when it comes to this conflict, it's not even a balance between them in how it's being done. Russia is actively doing propaganda as the Soviet Union did, they're nowhere close to each other in magnitude. Russia is actively hammering down on free speech, free media, silencing anyone who criticizes them. This kind of information control coupled with state media that is impossible to criticize creates a totalitarian society where propaganda is the ONLY information flowing around. It's not even remotely close to how the US operates its propaganda. The US's propaganda has more to do with building an image of US exceptionalism around the world and nationally. It's about building up justifying reasons for their presence globally. It's propaganda, but compared to Russia it's "harmless" and totally open to criticism. You can speak out as much as you want in the US about this and there won't be a boot pressing you down. There might be some MAGA morons doing it, but that is not the same as a state doing it. The problem with propaganda is that when it becomes the only narrative allowed and when there's no way of criticizing it or bringing other perspectives to it, then it becomes utterly destructive.
Russian propaganda is the main engine in how Russia operates, just like it was during the Soviet Union. And it has now become even worse, basically a totalitarian nation where even your relatives get visits from the police if you speak up against Putin and Russia. The US and every other nation in the world basically use propaganda in some form or another. But it's very important to understand when propaganda is destructive and used as a form of control and when it's used as basically just a kind of national interest marketing. Those two are very different.
So propaganda in Russia is an important part to include and deconstruct if there's ever gonna be any truthful conclusions about Putin, Russia and this invasion. If you can't do that, if you can't use information and facts as a foundation for deciphering their propaganda in order to conclude what is likely going on, and instead just pick and choose from what Putin says to support your own pre-determined belief, then you're not really doing much more than stating your beliefs as "the truth" and using what fits that belief as premises for your argument. So now your argument is:
p1 Nato and EU has been expanding for years.
p2 Russia thinks Nato is a threat
p3 The US also conducts propaganda
Conclusion: When Putin said Russia had no intention to invade he was being truthful.
Not getting better here.
Quoting Apollodorus
This is not an argument, this is you saying that "you are wrong because you don't agree with my argument". I don't agree with your argument because there's enough pointing towards Russia and Putin's intention of expanding Russia into the old Russian empire, with those borders and playing a part of being one major superpower, disconnected from "the west". That the invasion is a reaction to take over nations included in that old geography before it's impossible to do so.
The problem with your argument is that you conclude it true by just disregarding any other interpretation. You disregard Putin's actions as just a reaction, because that fits your anti-west imperialist narrative. So for you, it needs to be true, there has to be validity to Putin's actions, otherwise many of your other values and ideological ideas fail. Putin and Russia can't have other intentions, and people not acknowledging your own perspective are wrong.
So, that is not an argument. You conclude something by saying "if you don't think like me you are wrong". There's no actual link between western imperialism and Putin's reason to invade that you have established as a connection. You just say, "it is about western imperialism" and expect this to be enough. No premises, no argument, just you saying so, therefore true. This is your problem.
p1 Nato and EU has been expanding for years.
p2 Russia thinks Nato is a threat
p3 The US also conducts propaganda
p4 You have to acknowledge that the root cause is western imperialism
Conclusion: When Putin said Russia had no intention to invade he was being truthful.
Just getting worse.
Quoting Apollodorus
And this is just what happens when you delude yourself that your conclusion is correct. You first conclude something based on nothing more than your belief, then you continue with your argument like this as if your earlier conclusion was true.
This is why I continue to return to your conclusion and demand true premises as a support for it. Because you don't do actual philosophy here. You don't use rational deduction or induction.
You state what you believe as being true, then you continue further arguments that require that truth as its premise foundation, meaning that it becomes circular reasoning. You think you are rational, but all you do is to use your own beliefs as premises thinking they are facts.
It's impossible to have a rational debate with someone who's so delusional about his own conclusions and who are unable to see past his own biases and fallacies.
So once again I return to your original statement because you still haven't given rational and logical support for it. Nato's expansion does not explain how in your conclusion, Putin is being truthful. It ignores the evidence we have against it (video metadata) and it comes into contradiction with Putin's other speeches about aspirations for the Russian empire based on Russian history (why is he truthful about what you want him to be truthful of, but not about everything else he says?).
Again, I want true premises that logically connect towards your conclusion here:
Quoting Apollodorus
There's no point in debating further if this hasn't been established as true or false first. I'm asking you to support THIS statement, THIS conclusion. Clean off all whataboutisms and irrelevant noise and give me an argument that's about supporting THIS conclusion, that's all I ask. Is it hard? Is it not possible? Because it seems you aren't able to actually do this. Stop trying to side-step this issue, because this issue is at the core of your arguments and there's no point in going further before this statement has been proven true or false first.
p1 Nato and EU has been expanding for years. (does not validate Putin's truthfulness)
p2 Russia thinks Nato is a threat (does not validate Putin's truthfulness)
p3 The US also conducts propaganda (does not validate Putin's truthfulness)
p4 You have to acknowledge that the root cause is western imperialism (does not validate Putin's truthfulness)
Conclusion: When Putin said Russia had no intention to invade he was being truthful.
Try again
If it goes all in with Putin and strengthens it's alliance with Russia, that's basically the end of globalization. Invading Taiwan would also surely do this, but also I think there is a possibility it just inadvertently falls into the sanctions hole with Russia. Russia is now basically dependent on it, so it's unlikely not to use the situation to it's advantage.
The World could now quite easily separate into two blocs. That's the end of globalization as we have known it for thirty years now.
I think China is too dependent on trade to easily just join up with Russia. China needs a variety of trade much more than Russia does. Russia could basically just cut ties to the west and still work with low living standards but still survive. China however has much more to lose if they would ever end up with similar sanctions.
If all goes to shit for Russia, I'm not sure China wants to be part of such a downfall. They are "idealogy-allies" in terms of being against western culture, but I think China just wants to "be themselves" while still trading with the rest of the world. Russia doesn't seem to give a fuck if they become totally isolated, at least Putin doesn't and I think it's this difference that puts China in a difficult position. Either ally fully with Russia and risk their entire economy as well as trade, but be cut off from western culture, or let western culture in, but try and influence the world to stay somewhat themselves.
I'm not so sure that it's possible to become a superpower today without being part of globalization. It's risky trying to be alone and still make it. Like how North Korea is; alone, isolated, not part of the west and I wouldn't say they're having any kind of life quality living standards worth it. Most of the population is starving and it's quite a mess for everyone but the top leaders. Compare that to South Korea.
People say that all of this is a kind of end of globalization, but it could also be that globalization is the only way forward for the kind of world we have today and everyone who dislocates themselves from it will suffer from it. It's entirely possible that there's no way back from it, it's locked into the economy, into the living standards.
National security trumps always trade with the West. If the Chinese truly feel threatened by the West, they will dump all those trade relations with the West in a heartbeat. Just like Russia has done. Ukraine was for Trump far important than trade relations.
Nations always start thinking about these issue from national security, not from trade policy. And this has huge effects. They will look at first securing the resources, raw materials, food security, that basically keep the society not ending up having a famine. And that is way different than thinking about how the economy will go. Global trade brings prosperity, but security is about survival. And countries will easily dump prosperity, if it's their security issues at stake. Here below is one way to look at how things look for China.
First of all, just how important are exports to China? As China has grown, the importance of the export sector has gotten smaller since the first decade of this millennium:
Now the export sector is less than 20% of the GDP. In fact with Russia the export sector was a larger percentage of the GDP than with China. Let's look at just where China gets it's oil:
Again countries that aren't going with sanctions even to Russia. Then let's look at how the World looks to China by the amount it exports to countries and how much it imports from foreign countries. (Note that the map has Macao and Hong Kong, which are part of China)
And from these, we can look at the trade balance, what countries are net importers and net exporters.
Notice that the largest importers of oil to China are Russia, Angola and Saudi-Arabia. Countries that won't likely join the embargoes of the West.
Yet when you look at the Imports map, you notice that even together they are a fraction of the imports from South Korea. In fact Russia isn't important as a trading partner for China. But for the China, it is the major ally. Hence to answer your argument: China isn't too dependent on trade. If it's the position of the Chinese Communist Party on the line, they will dump everything and go martial law, if it comes to that.
By trade, I also mean how influential China has become world wide. They have a lot of influence in corporations around the globe that's about more than just transactional trade. They've conducted the power play of the modern globalized world by instead of waging war, they've put themselves in power by investing abroad as well as making the west dependent on their exports. Cutting off all of that is a much greater loss for China than how Russia deals with the cut off the world. Russia hasn't been involved in the world economy to the same extent. And this is what I mean with China losing far more than what Russia has done.
Of course they will survive, but I'm not sure they want to sink that low, I don't think they see any benefits to risking what they've built up. In essence I don't think there are many "Putins" among the top leaders in China, and instead there are people who we might disagree with politically and ideologically, but who are still more balanced diplomats than how Putin behaves.
I just find it hard to see China justify something in the way Russia has done. I think they know the power they have globally and don't want to risk any of that. China seems to be interested in being a superpower, not being an empire, as those are two different things.
If feel threatened, they will act. It's a different play then.
And they don't care about corporations. If a corporation is troublesome, the owner or the CEO will just vanish. The government is one who calls the shots, not the corporations. And if you mean foreign corporations, they're naturally expendable, likely untrustworthy.
And if the Chinese get the "Putin-disease", start looking at how the US and West goes after countries and start thinking it's just a matter of time before they are in the crosshairs, then they'll do it and prepare for similar outcomes. Of course it's a disastrous policy, absolutely ruinous, but what can you do if you go down that rabbit hole. If people get restless about the economy, one thing is to go to war and create the enemy you will fight also at home. Just like Putin now.
Because I'm sure some Chinese, those responsible of national security, will look at what is happening to Russia and assume they can be next. Now if these people make warplans, fine. That's their job. But if the leadership starts being delusional and think that the US will sooner or later attack, then it's everybody's problem.
There is Taiwan. The island held by the enemy from the Civil War.
Yes, and it might be that they had the plan to invade, but it might be that the result of Ukraine will dictate whether they will do it or not. If Ukraine is an utter failure for Russia, both Russia not getting Ukraine and also screwing up their own country down into third world standards, then I'm not so sure they will feel any urge to invade Taiwan.
Delusional dictators pop up now and then, but that would be what is required. Any balanced politician, even in nations like China will, I think, try to play the geopolitics a bit different today compared to the old empire war days.
So I think it all comes down to "the Putin disease" as you put it. Some delusional leaders or leader who just does something without any regard for the consequences.
Nonsense. I think it's obvious even to yourself that you're making this up! :rofl:
I never said "Nato and EU has been expanding for years. Conclusion: When Putin said Russia had no intention to invade he was being truthful."
Quoting Christoffer
From what I see you're drawing your own conclusions and then attribute them to others. And you call others "delusional"? Maybe you're from the Finnish outback after all:
Incidentally, NATO expansion is a well-known FACT:
And, of course, the result of NATO expansion has been predicted for many years:
Many predicted Nato expansion would lead to war. Those warnings were ignored - The Guardian
So, I think you're wasting your (and other people's) time ....
A usual response when someone doesn't understand simple fallacies.
Quoting Apollodorus
So what is your premise then? I asked for a premise in support of the statement you made, what other premise can be drawn from what you wrote? Or did you evade providing a correct premise once again?
Quoting Apollodorus
No, I'm asking you for valid premises to your conclusion, so far you haven't. And I still don't know why you're so focused on the Finnish outback when I'm Swedish, maybe you don't pay much attention, which might explain a lot of things actually.
Quoting Apollodorus
And still not a valid premise for your conclusion. Do you have problems actually understanding what you read? Since you don't seem to understand why they don't glue together? Your conclusion was about evaluating the level of truth in Putin's speeches about not invading. It has nothing to do with the fact that Nato has been expanding. You seem very confused as to what is actually being asked of you, instead answer with all sorts of answers thinking they can produce a valid outcome. Maybe pay a bit more attention and read more carefully.
Quoting Apollodorus
No, you are wasting everyone's time with not just answering a simple request to provide more support for what you say. Instead, you whataboutism around it, provide facts that don't support the conclusion I asked you to provide support for, and continue to talk about some Finnish outback in order to try and ad hominem your way out of it. Answer the simple request and stop wasting everyone's time with post after post that doesn't even connect to it.
Here's your conclusion again, since you seem to not even understand what conclusion you're supposed to provide support for:
Quoting Apollodorus
Why is it so hard to create a proper argument for this? Is it because you can't? Because you don't have anything that actually provides support to this being actually truthful? That it's basically just an opinion, an unsupported belief without even much of a probability assessment behind it?
So the West is fully entitled to undermine the safety of others, but others may not even defend themselves?
The problem is that not all Americans (as in: American citizens) are the same, nor are all Russians (as in: Russian citizens), or all Germans (as in: German citizens), and so on. Nations don't exist as homogenous, unified entities, so using the national name can sometimes be misleading.
Can you come up with a good reason as to why people shouldn't do that?
I'm asking this in earnest, because from what I've seen, people generally don't see this as a problem. They don't seem to see a problem in having a lot of money and fancy education titles to their names, while in their heart, they are lumpenproletariat.
No, it has nothing to do with socialism/communism. It has to do with common decency.
While more and more people in the Western capitalist paradise have to wear diapers to work and literally piss and shit in their pants because they don't get to take a bathroom break. Not to mention how normal it has become to live in constant fear of losing your job. In the Western capitalist paradise!
You are forgetting that the Orthodox Church doesn't work the same way as the Roman Catholic Church (or the Protestant churches).
The Orthodox do not and cannot make a claim to divine justification and infallibility, while the Roman Catholics do (as do Protestants).
Quoting ssu
In regards to what is at stake for China to invade Taiwan, look at that map to see how much China imports from Taiwan.
China already has the problem of cutting their nose to spite the face because of the importance of Taiwanese investment along with its place in the supply chain for their products. Invading Tiawan won't transfer their market share to China, especially if the invasion destroys infrastructure on the scale of the ongoing leveling of Ukraine.
I acknowledge the difference but there is the legitimacy that is conveyed by having the Patriarch shake pom-poms for Putin's agenda.
An Orthodox patriarch is not the same as the Roman pope. If the pope advertises something, then this comes with the blessing of his infallibility*, while this is not the case with a patriarch.
(*Some limitations apply; the pope's infallibility applies only to matters such as faith.)
Yes, I just agreed with that.
Yeah, that video pretty much sums up most of it. The main part is that people genuinely seem to be unable to understand that reasons don't equal justification. Putin can delude himself and his minions all he wants with his reasons, but there's nothing about Nato expansion nor his dreams of the old Russian empire that justifies any kind of invasion or war of any kind.
It all boils down to a simple question of national freedom: does an independent nation have the freedom to build its own security, including joining a security alliance? If the answer is no, then people can argue for Putin's justifications. If the answer is yes, then the debate is over and Putin is essentially the bad guy here. If no, then that leads to a whole bunch of follow-up questions that need to be addressed. What Russia wants, what it fears, how delusional it is about Nato or whatever argument there is for Putin's justification, it doesn't matter because, as the video ends with, Putin proved the justification for Nato's existence. It even forced Sweden and Finland to radically change opinions 180 about their will to join Nato. If Russia could just, like, fucking stay within their borders and do whatever they want in there, that's totally fine, then Sweden and Finland wouldn't have to think about Nato like this. But since Putin threatens the world as he does, even if that is just his Russian bullying bullshit methods, it really justifies having an alliance of security against such lunacy. There's no justification that can be done on Russia's or Putin's part, none.
If Russia wants to be alone, they can be alone, no one really cares about them as a nation, especially not now. If Russia wants to be cared about, if they want to be a global player, then no one is actually stopping them from it. It's just that they have to be involved with lots of globalization things that they just didn't like. And they can't have the cake and eat it too. They either join the rest of the globalized world, be a true partner, someone people likes, not someone they fear. Or they go down the route they've gone down now, to be someone to fear, to gain "respect" through that. It's bullying mentality really, the gangster/mafia method of gaining respect. It also means no one wants to deal with them anymore, no one wants criminals around them. If someone is consistently acting like a criminal, bullying, beating people up, and never stops even when everyone tells them to chill, then in the end people will turn their backs. To then be pissed because people don't trust them, to be pissed that people want security from them, so pissed that they attack in full force... that isn't in any shape or form justified. It only justifies their own demise and gives every justification for an alliance of security.
I find it remarkable the amount of defense Russia and Putin get on this forum. From the uneducated, the illogical apologists and the confused irrationals, not seeing how actually non-complicated things have become by the acts of Putin and Russia. We now have much more insight into Russia and Putin than ever, fully seeing what he has built up towards. Over the years there's been lots of apologists as well as fear-mongers and the discussions and debates have been raging without any real conclusions being able to be drawn since neither side had much to back anything up. This war really sided with the fear mongers, there's no question Putin lived up to their arguments and ideas. But still, the debate is ongoing for some reason. It's hard to look at bombed children and think there's any grey area to the justification Putin had for this invasion. It's crystal clear he's become the first superpower dictator since the cold war or even WWII. And there's no defending that, however people think they're clever arguing for it.
I more or less agree, I think.
Well just because the US and her allies really didn't do much when other countries may have invaded their neighbors doesn't mean that those invasions where "ok". There is an old saying "you can't catch every bird that falls from the sky". While the Western powers have vast resources and sometimes try to act like the police of the world, it doesn't mean they can afford to either try to fix any and every problem that comes up or even bother to get involved with them. And if claim that they only really want to get involved with issues that are tied to something that is important to them then the answer is "yes" but that is basically true of any country that has ever existed.
As to why it is important for the US to get involved when Russia (the country with the second largest military in the world) starts using it's military to take over other countries, I think it should obvious to anyone that knows anything about World War I, World War II, the Cold War, NATO, and Russian history. As to why it is important US and European nations national security as to the events unfolding in Ukraine right now. It is plausible that you don't see it as a security issue, but since that would be quite a different view point to anyone who is responsible for their nations security and faced with dealing with the problems of Russia invading.
Maybe if you can explain why you don't see the Ukraine conflict as being important to US or NATO, I could address whatever issue you are trying to raise.
Quoting Apollodorus
There is hardly anyone still alive who lived through World War II and it has been hard for some countries to justify having and maintaining large armies that would be ready for anything like what happened back then. And just because a few extra countries join NATO doesn't mean it is anything like when a country start taking over other countries like when Germany did during world War II. If I have a gardening club and get a few extra people to join it, it doesn't mean I have gained some major power in doing so.
Quoting Apollodorus
I don't think the US military industrial complex ever really cared if Russia wanted to join NATO or not. If anything, they were likely more happier before Russia fell and they could always scare people of the "big old boogey man" that Russia appeared to be during the Cold War. However after 9/11 we starting having the "War on Terrorism" as well as the wars in the middle east. Unfortunately we were not facing the kind of armies over there where high tech military hardware is really effective against but I guess beggars sometimes can't be choosers.
But now that Putin and those that support him in Russia have shown that they are willing to use military force to bully their neighbors, we are now back to the good old Cold War days again and we are again facing a rival that justifies us spending whatever we can on revamping our military again. If I was someone that owned a major share of General Dynamics or other similar company I would want to send Putin a large bouquet of flowers and a thank you note, if I wouldn't get in trouble for doing so.
In the end, I imagine Putin/Russia is more playing into into the US/NATO's hand more than undermining them in any way since the US and NATO need someone to play the bad guy in order to justify the cost of them maintaining a military industrial complex the size that they have. Then again if Putin didn't do it, it is possible that China would have ended up doing the same thing as so as they invaded Taiwan.
Quoting Apollodorus
I haven't seen anything you or anyone else has said that really makes it seem like Kolomoisky is "evil" other then possibly being nothing but a pawn of Western countries. If he is as bad as you say I would need to see some proof before I could believe he is anything like people such as Putin or Stalin.
Quoting Apollodorus
Well I guess you got your wish since both Russia and China are trying to become a super power that rivals the US and are either using or considering using military action in doing so. :D
Just hope that between these wars that none of them involve NBC weapons or any (or all) of these "free and independent countries" turn into something out of 1984. Even if the world is multipolar, it doesn't mean that those in power in any given country will treat it's people any better. I think the conditions in Russia, China, and as well as the United States (as well as many other countries) is proof of that. While a multipolar would might make it a little harder for one dictator for to have too much power and getting something like a God complex., I think people like Putin, Stalin, and Adolf Hitler shows that it doesn't do that much to prevent it.
I think you misread what I said. I did say that the US and her allies concentrate on their own security more then the security of others, but I didn't say that they do it in a way that is a blatant double standard in regard to other countries or at least not that as far as I can tell. However as I said elsewhere in tis thread this is pretty much true of all other countries that have had to deal with national security issues through out the world.
Do I think the US was right to have go into Vietnam, two wars in Iraq, and the rest of the stuff we did in the middle east? Not really, but I don't think what we did was quite as bad as what Russia is doing in Ukraine nor have we threaten other countries with nuclear weapons if they merely provide some kind of help/aid to our enemies.
I hope you understand the vast difference between what I'm saying and what it seems like you think I'm saying. If you understand the US and it's foreign policy you would likely know why we are not exactly the "good guys" but I think it is a pretty much a given that we are not exactly the "bad guys" either or at least not in the way Hilter and Stalin where.
I don't know if I'm making myself clear enough and/or if you disagree with what I'm saying and you feel that the "West (feels like it is) fully entitled to undermine the safety of others, but others may not even defend themselves". If so please explain your position so I know what you are saying and feel free to bring up anything bad/evil that the US has ever done. I don't think it can shock me any more than what I have already read about.
You may claim to be "Swedish", but your claim is insufficient to conclude that you are not from the Finnish outback.
Ergo, you have failed to provide valid premises for your conclusion.
Very simple, IMO. :wink:
Anyway,
Quoting baker
Correct. But given that America is the world’s largest economy and consumer market, that the US dollar is the primary international trade currency, that America controls the World Bank, IMF, NATO, etc., I think when we say, for example, “America dominates the world’s economy or finances”, everyone knows what is meant.
I think the sanctions imposed on Russia show quite clearly that the world is largely controlled by economic and financial interests the majority of whom are headquartered in the US: World Bank (Washington), IMF (Washington), IFC (Washington), etc.
The solution seems to be to restore greater freedom and independence to individual nation-states, however we choose to define them.
Quoting baker
Well, if people don’t see it as a problem, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t one. IMO it doesn’t make sense to speak of “freedom”, “democracy”, “human rights”, etc. and at the same time promote a system that takes people’s freedom away and keeps them chained to itself like dogs to a kennel.
In fact, people are worse than chained dogs as the dogs can see the chains, but people don’t see the strings that tie them to the system and act en masse as commanded by the global media. :smile:
And acting out of ignorance (or denial) doesn’t seem like an ideal situation ....
Well, all I can see there is double standards. If we want Ukraine to be independent from Russia, why don’t we also want Tibet to be independent from China, Kurdistan to be independent from Turkey, Germany (and the rest of Europe) to be independent from America, etc., etc.?
As for Kolomoisky, he is basically like a very wealthy mafia boss with links to the criminal world and influence on Ukrainian politics.
An Injection Of Rule Of Law For Ukrainian Business? Oligarch's Lawsuit Could Help Improve The Culture Of Business Dealings In The Post Soviet Space – Forbes
The Times describes Kolomoysky’s private militia as one of Ukraine’s most powerful military groups:
U.S. Sanctions Key Ukrainian Oligarch - New York Times
According to the Pandora Papers:
And The Times:
U.S. Sanctions Key Ukrainian Oligarch, Ihor Kolomoisky - The New York Times
The fact that Kolomoisky is “not as evil as Stalin” is neither here nor there, as it isn't a criterion to establish evil. What is certain is that he is sufficiently evil for the Ukrainian people to have voted for Zelensky to get rid of him and other oligarchs. Unfortunately, he and other members of his criminal fraternity are still there.
In any case, as I said already, most of this has been discussed on the other thread and there is little point to repeat it here ....
I believe I more or less agree with everything you said. Back when the USSR was collapsing if they handled it in some way similar to what China did, there would have been very little the West could do about it. But they didn't and now they are likely not anywhere as nearly as powerful as they were when they were still the USSR. And of course over the years there have been many other events that have undermined their efforts in maintaining their "Super Power" status.
However just because someone was once a super power and wants to become a super power again doesn't mean that they can just go to war with any country in the world and not have to face consequences for doing so. Yes, Russia and the other countries that still support them us to be the USSR and Russia is still a nuclear power with the second largest military in the world but I think that any politician that understands world history knows that giving bullies what they want just emboldens them to want more and more just as it did with Hilter in WW II.
I know the "Hilter doctrine" (ie. basically trying to stop any would-be power hungry dictator grabbing other countries as soon as possible if they threaten US national security) has many flaws as it has likely has drawn the US into unnecessary wars in the past. However in the case of the Ukraine, we can not ignore what is going on there nor assume that if Putin gets what he wants that Russia will stop there.
Also Putin has to be crazy if he thinks the US/NATO will not want to get involved. There is nothing like the threat of war and/or the possibility of being taken over by some country like Russia or China to galvanize Western countries to start mobilizing and getting ready to fight. Japan made that mistake in WWII and it is hard for me to believe that any country that that wishes to threaten either the US or NATO countries that we would what to back down if faced with the prospect of war.
Quoting Christoffer
I could be wrong but I believe that those in power in both Russia and China will not be happy until they are a Super Power that is able to rival the US and her allies, or at least until it becomes impossible to do so.
For those who have money and power, it is almost never enough to just have what you already have. I believe it is something that regular plebs like you, me, and about 99.9% of the rest of the population can not understand unless we are something like a psychologist that studies such issues. Power can be like a drug and the more you have it, the more you want even more of it. Also people that are part of the elite few that have so much power, morality because something different then what the rest of the population thinks it is. You can get away with more things because you basically an army of people to protect you and shield you from either the law or other people that might want to come after you. To be honest, I can hardly imagine how such people even begin to think other than that the other 99.9% of the population are merely either cattle or mere tools to be used in order for them to get what they want.
I know this doesn't really explain why Putin (or those that support him) are now invading Ukraine other then it is possible that Putin might be ill and/or they regret that they didn't do enough action when the USSR collapsed and that they reached a tipping point where they can no longer sit by as whatever used to be the USSR continues to get less and less powerful/influential. I could be wrong but this could be the "all or nothing" moment where they no longer feel they can sit by and play by the same rules that the US and the rest of the world plays by. If so then it could get a lot worse before things get better.
Quoting Christoffer
I'm guessing some are either just trying to play the devil's advocate or perhaps they don't understand the situation that well. It is possible that some of them actually have some kind of anti-US position, but I don't imagine it is likely any of those kind of people would both debating here.
I'm also guessing that some people don't realize that this war can keep escalating from what it already is or has become. It is unlikely that this is really an "all or nothing" for Putin and those that support him, but it was also believed that it was very unlikely Russia would invade Ukraine in the first place. Right now people are going about their lives much as they have during any other time, but a few weeks ago Putin made a threat that he might use nuclear weapons if either the West interfered or if things didn't go his way in Ukraine. Such a threat may be just a little sabre rattling from his side, but I believe it may be a glimpse into what is going on in his mind and in Russia.
I believe during the Cold War while there always was the threat of nuclear war, no US or Russian leader would directly threaten to use them if they couldn't get what they wanted. I don't know if it was because such a danger was a given or because of the problems of openly threatening using nukes (as well as biological or chemical weapons) would create or perhaps both. However Putin felt it was NECESSARY to make such a threat, and that was almost at the beginning of the invasion when things just started to not go his way.
Perhaps part of the reason may have been that since we haven't been living in a Cold War until recently, most people don't even have any understanding of what NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) weapons are or what a war that involves them would be like and Putin's threat was just a kind of "friendly" reminder to so of us in the West what might happen if for some reason we start going down that path. The other possibility is that those on the Russian side are more than ready and willing to use such means to get what they want if things are not going to plan then the US and our allies are aware of.
One of the better aspects of NBC weapons is usually the damage done by them is so horrible that it is very hard to deal with by any military or civilian force if they are hit by them, unlike conventional weapons that are no so bad in comparison. Because of this usually a country that has NBCs but a army that is relatively weak might be able to hold off another country that has a larger army if that country is afraid of their NBC capabilities and their willingness to use them. In the case of two countries that both have NBC capabilities and a large military, often both sides are reluctant to fight because of the consequences for either are to much. I could be wrong but I believe there hasn't been a third world war yet mainly because of the problems that are caused when a country uses NBC type weapons.
The drawback to this is when in a conflict between two countries that have NBCs, when one (or perhaps both) sides are ready to use them regardless of what the consequences would bring. Luckily this problem hasn't happened yet in history (as far as I know of) as it has been all but a given that anyone that has been in a position of power to use nukes (or considered the other two options) really hasn't gone down that path. I don't know if this is because they are too afraid of what might happen and/or there has never been a good enough reason to use them. The only problem remains is when someone is crazy enough to try it and if Putin is really one of these people.
I think there simply has to be already a fancy term for this.
But it's basically that leaders start believing their own lies. They gather around themselves "a team" of yes-men that most vividly regurgitate these lies and make them better. In the end, the lie that they sometime earlier knew to be a convenient lie becomes really the truth, the holy cause that fate has given them to do. Their destiny.
Nobody ever wanted them to begin with. They have always been treated as third class people. To whatever extent they were accepted, it was all conditional. Russians (and Slavic people in general) have always been expected to earn the respect of the Westerners, while the Westerners feel entitled to getting respect from others without ever earning it.
This skewed dynamic is at the core of this whole conflict, and many others.
It's kind of natural that people are skeptical towards populations in nations that have consistently shown questionable national behavior, the same way everyone viewed Germany after WWII. But plenty did in fact have bright thoughts of the future for Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed. After a brief fear of a new world war at the time, things were looking better. As the economy recovered in Russia there were plenty of open arms between the West and Russia.
But then Putin began to bring back that distrust through his behavior. And while silencing all people in Russia who really wanted Russia to be a modern nation with good relations to other nations all around the world, it brought back all that distrust in the West. It's important to remember that the Russian fear of being invaded is just a delusion and that delusion pushing the hands of Russia to isolate from the West is still on them, it's not our fault. If the entire culture is built around state media propaganda, silencing critics, pushing down on free speech and so on, that will bleed into a national image others have of them.
It's like that feedback loop that happens with segregated people concentrated in a neighborhood leading to higher crime rates. If the city and politics built into this pressure cooker, if lots of bad policies and systemic racism brought forth this concentration of segregated people in a poor neighborhood that then led to crime, it then feeds into the culture of that neighborhood so that people then start living within the racist concepts other people have of them. At some point, it just becomes a never-ending cycle where politicians and other citizens do nothing to help the neighborhood and the people of the hood isolating themselves and creating a culture around the negative image people have of them. At some point, things need to stop, on both sides.
The West hasn't really done Russia anything wrong since the Soviet Union fell and so many new collaborations with the rest of the world, so many open arms to create something new, but Russia just couldn't let go of the Soviet mentality. The distrust of the West is understandable, but when the West opened arms to Russia while being criticized by experts who said "don't trust Russia", it actually was that kind of one-sided stop to the cycle that was needed. But Russia just couldn't get with that program and fell into its old habit. And now we're back into Cold War territory again.
This is why I say that the only way for Russia to quickly come into the warmth again would be by revolution, french style. There needs to be a great flush to rid Russia of old farts who keep living in old early 20th century ideals. Russia needs younger, modern Russians to take over.
Why can't the Soviet Union just... die already? It's like the old relative that gets all diseases possible but still just stands up and continues screaming at younger generations.
My point is that many did actually, pretty fast as well, embrace the concept of a new Russia and let go of the distrust, but Putin kind of fucked that up royally over the years, especially with the crown jewel of shit that is this invasion.