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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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)

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

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?

Here is a video I found that might help explain some of problems between Russia and NATO and some of the thinking behind Putin (and those that support him in Russia) and why they felt justified in invading Ukraine. However, I imagine some people watching might feel that it is a bit slanted to one indoctrinated to what some of us in in West are thinking at this time, anyone that is in any way Pro-Putin are thinks the US/NATO caused the war in Ukraine themselves, don't say I didn't warn you that it viewpoint may not be one you agree with.

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,

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

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:

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

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.

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

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.

Putin's close connection to the Russian Orthodox Church should not go unnoticed. — Paine

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.

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

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.

Here is a video I found that might help explain some of problems between Russia and NATO — dclements

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Additionally, Russia’s military operation in Ukraine frustrates NATO’s and the EU’s expansion plans. — 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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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 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 .

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! — ssu

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Even Germany is talking about the need for rebuilding it's military in order to protect themselves from potential wanton aggression — 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.

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

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.

More to the point if you had to choose which of the three would you rather have almost total world dominance? — 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.

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

It's also interesting that you think it's about facts when your conclusion looks like this:

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 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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:

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

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

Basically China has to do a balancing act.

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.

I think China is too dependent on trade - China needs a variety of trade much more than Russia does. — Christoffer

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.

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

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.

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.

There is Taiwan. The island held by the enemy from the Civil War. — ssu

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.

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

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."

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

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:

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

Incidentally, NATO expansion is a well-known FACT:

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

And, of course, the result of NATO expansion has been predicted for many years:

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.”

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 ....

Nonsense. I think it's obvious even to yourself that you're making this up! — Apollodorus

A usual response when someone doesn't understand simple fallacies.

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

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?

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

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.

Incidentally, NATO expansion is a well-known FACT: — 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.

So, I think you're wasting your (and other people's) time .... — 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:

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

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?

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

So the West is fully entitled to undermine the safety of others, but others may not even defend themselves?