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.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:
The term was and is mainly applied to Western and Japanese political and economic dominance, especially in Asia and Africa, in the 19th and 20th centuries.
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. — Apollodorus
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.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? — jamalrob
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 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. — Paine
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?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. — 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?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)” (роусьскаѧ землѧ, rusĭskaę zemlę), 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: — Apollodorus
Despite his campaign promises, no progress has been made in fighting corruption. According to Transparency International, Ukraine remains the third-most-corrupt country in Europe, after Russia and Azerbaijan. Anti-corruption and law enforcement agencies are either stalling or run by loyalists appointed by the president … – New York Times
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. — dclements
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?!
— baker
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. — dclements
Putin's close connection to the Russian Orthodox Church should not go unnoticed. — Paine
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. — Apollodorus
Absolutely fabulous! :100: :up:Here is a video I found that might help explain some of problems between Russia and NATO — dclements
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". — baker
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 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? — 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.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. — 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.Additionally, Russia’s military operation in Ukraine frustrates NATO’s and the EU’s expansion plans. — Apollodorus
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.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”. — 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.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. — 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.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: — Apollodorus
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.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. — Paine
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. — baker
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 ... C) as far as anyone can tell in the West, Ukraine wasn't an aggressor — dclements
Actually I think Russia’s military operation in Ukraine is just about the best thing that could happen to it after WWII … 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. — dclements
Even Germany is talking about the need for rebuilding it's military in order to protect themselves from potential wanton aggression — dclements
Unless Kolomoisky is the devil himself (or perhaps even if he is), I can't really see how he can be worse than Putin. — dclements
More to the point if you had to choose which of the three would you rather have almost total world dominance? — dclements
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. — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
Incidentally, Tomas Ries, associate professor at the Swedish National Defence College, has said:
From a Russian military perspective, I can understand that they were worried when Nato was enlarged … It’s an awkward position for the West. It is true that the US and Nato have used force when they felt they needed to. Sometimes it was justified, as in the Balkans in 1995, but sometimes it was very dodgy like in Iraq. From the Russian perspective, I can see how they can make that argument. — Apollodorus
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: — Apollodorus
an essential step toward the correct understanding of the current international situationwould 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. — Apollodorus
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 .... — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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.I think China is too dependent on trade - China needs a variety of trade much more than Russia does. — Christoffer
If feel threatened, they will act. It's a different play then.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. — Christoffer
There is Taiwan. The island held by the enemy from the Civil War.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. — Christoffer
There is Taiwan. The island held by the enemy from the Civil War. — ssu
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. — Christoffer
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. — Christoffer
In Old Norse sources, beings described as trolls dwell in isolated areas of rocks, mountains, or caves, live together in small family units, and are rarely helpful to human beings ... - Wikipedia
After its formation in 1949 with twelve founding members, NATO grew rapidly by including Greece and Turkey in 1952 and West Germany in 1955. The addition of West Germany into NATO prompted the Soviet Union to adopt their own collective security alliance, informally called the Warsaw Pact later that same year ... - Wikipedia
Analysts committed to a US foreign policy of realism and restraint have warned for more than a quarter‐century that continuing to expand the most powerful military alliance in history toward another major power would not end well. The war in Ukraine provides definitive confirmation that it did not.
George Kennan, the intellectual father of America’s containment policy during the cold war, perceptively warned in a May 1998 New York Times interview about what the Senate’s ratification of Nato’s first round of expansion would set in motion. “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” Kennan stated. ”I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.”
Nonsense. I think it's obvious even to yourself that you're making this up! — Apollodorus
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." — Apollodorus
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: — Apollodorus
Incidentally, NATO expansion is a well-known FACT: — Apollodorus
So, I think you're wasting your (and other people's) time .... — Apollodorus
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. — Apollodorus
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. — dclements
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.