The point (which you conveniently ignored) was at what cost is the Netherlands now quite a nice place to live?

At what cost to Africa (from which a large part of it's wealth was stolen)? — Isaac

Lol. I think you are mixing up colonies of Belgium and the Dutch (as the Dutch Cape colony existed until 1806) and the largest colony was the East Indies (modern Indonesia).

First, ssu mentioned Marxism, the tradition that grew out of Marx and developed the theories. One such development, as ssu has mentioned, was Marxism-Leninism, which can fairly be said to promote one party rule.

Second, Marx himself spoke in favour of “revolutionary terror” and of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

On the other hand, the dictatorship of the proletariat doesn’t necessarily entail one-party rule: anti-Stalinist Marxists point to the unfulfilled promise of workplace and soviet (council) democracy as a way to actualize it. — Jamal

As I tried to give @Benkei the example of Nietzsche and Nazi ideology. Was Nietzsche hijacked? Misunderstood or misinterpreted? That's one discussion, but it cannot refute the fact that Nazi ideology cherished Nietzsche's thoughts. However much "misinterpretation" there was.

Hence I understand fully well, that the writings of Karl Marx and Marxism-Leninism as it existed in the 20th Century are two different things. Yet to say Marxism-Leninism, the Soviet Union and all the attempts on creating a Marxist revolution have nothing to do with the Karl Marx, is a bit too far.

This is bullshit. If you are so badly educated in Marx' work that you think this has sensibly been attempted anywhere how he envisaged it then you really don't know what he wrote. — Benkei

I'm sure Nietschze wouldn't have been enthusiastic of the Third Reich making him their favorite philosopher either. But history tells us how ideas are used, abused and tried to be implemented.

On that note we can discount capitalism in its entirety as well because well... look around. — Benkei

Capitalism is fervently discounted all the time and likely will be continued to be opposed in the future too. Yet Netherlands is a quite nice place to live in.

Shall we now ignore what Smith wrote? Say? Mises? Only Marx is vilified because it's politically expedient. — Benkei

I'm not so sure if only Marx is vilified, especially when some have started to judge historical people from viewpoint of our present time and not as children of their age.

Yes, the Communist Manifesto should be understood in the context of it's time, and Marx himself acknowledge that the proletariat might just end up demanding higher salaries, yet it shouldn't be difficult to understand how people will take it when you write things like:

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production

Then people reading Marx like gospel will go for those "despotic inroads".

It's just like populism: the adversarial juxtaposition of people can lead to ugly results, because people are divided to "us" and "them", good and bad.

Yes, let's look at history. What did Marx do other than be a committed democrat during his lifetime? Your bias is obvious and your lack of knowledge and understanding of his work apparent. — Benkei

I'll repeat: It's one thing what the economist / philosopher thinks, it's another thing what the implementation of those thoughts lead to.

Of course. It’s just weird to use “Marxism” to refer to a system of government, because it’s primarily an analysis and critique of capitalism. It implies that Marxism is necessarily against democracy. — Jamal

I think the critique of "Animal Farm" was against Marxism-Leninism. The story obviously was about Soviet Russia. I think that the Spanish Civil war had opened eyes of Orwell. For many fighting on the Republic side, that did happen.

And yet you invariably demonstrate not to have actually read him. Marx wasn't against democracy at all. — Benkei

What has in history come of the attempts of doing Marxist revolution? I'm looking at history, not selected quotes from Marx. Naturally communism ought to have democracy, but the little trouble with that is that the class enemy tend to be the people you would have in any democracy. Yeah, Marx perhaps didn't intend it, but many times these revolutions come to be at ground level things like killing the rich (and vice versa, killing working class activists).

It's one thing what the economist / philosopher thinks, it's another thing what the implementation of those thoughts lead to.

Besides the question is far older than Marx as the question of wealth distribution, which in my view is one the core differences between the left and the right, is a question that you had already in ancient Rome.

Marxism isn't a political theory but an economic one. Maybe read him some time. — Benkei

Marxist movements have been, as you know, political. Perhaps then I should use Marxism-Leninism. But anyway I think here it would be proper to talk about authoritarian states.

And actually I was taught also Marxist economics in the university as part of history of economics. (By a marxist, actually)

I think the mistake that ssu makes is in implying that it is also a system of government. — Jamal

One party rule might not change the basic system of government, but reality with a one party system does have major differences to a multiparty system. For example, the German Parliament, the Reichstag, did operate during the Third Reich. Always giving unanimous consent to the Führer.

But democracy is not the usual outcome of a populist revolution. — Vera Mont

Populist no, definately. But notice that populism (not to be mixed with something being popular) is confrontational and adverserial: it's us, the ordinary people, against them. Be they the leaders, the elite, the rich or some ethnic minority that is seen to dominate.

Populists don't want democracy. They just want to gain power and once in power they usually have to find the enemy somewhere else.

Democracy is the usual outcome of a gradually dismantled monarchy. — Vera Mont

Or just like in Germany, Czechoslovakia (with then dissolved itself) and in the Baltic States, can come back if the state has been earlier in history a democracy. And that's one thing positive about democracies. Yes, you can get an autocrat elected, who does a self-coup and changes the democracy into being in name only, yet democracies can recover.

A long process of democratization, not a big clash of arms. — Vera Mont

Few countries have been able to transform from a monarchy to a democracy (usually becoming constitutional monarchies) without any violence. Sweden comes to my mind. With the UK people usually forget that the country was a republic (if you can call the military dictatorship that) for a while.

Do Finlanders go off into the tundra to avoid governmental interference? — frank

Lol, no. Neither do the Swedes.

Interestingly Finns do have a quite different view about their state and government that the Americans. We are just happy that our country has survived as an sovereign state. Looking at other Fenno-Ugric people in Russia, it's quite clear that our tiny population is quite expendable. Nobody would have given a rats ass if the Finns would have been assimilated to Russians and never had their independent country.

Hence we have a lot of faith and trust at our goverment. Small place, not much corruption, everybody knows nearly everybody. Heck, I do voluntary work for the government! :meh:

A humiliating defeat might not be enough to get rid of Russian hegemonic ambitions once for all. — neomac

Yes, that is totally true. Especially when you are talking about Russia.

Anything can still happen. But usually failed wars don't bolster jingoism and your willingness to use force again. Usually the result is the opposite. After the Vietnam war the US wasn't eager to fight similar wars. It needed for the Cold War to end and 9/11 attacks to happen before the US was ready to go recklessly everywhere to fight "The War on Terror". Now with Afghanistan fallen and the Taliban with their Emirate back in charge, notice the absence of anyone talking about "The War on Terror".

Unless it brings to the dissolution of the Russian federation. — neomac

But note, this fear of the dissolution of Russian federation is actually the pillarstone for Russian imperialism. Catherine the Great said something very crucial when she said that in order to defend her country's border, she has to push them further. Russia always portrays itself to be the victim, even if it isn't always Napoleon or Hitler marching into their country. This is the way the Russians are fed the propaganda of their imperialism: the evil West is out to destroy Russia. We must fight back!!!

Similar reasoning is evident in Communist China too: if China would let democracy work, then "the Middle kingdom" would collapse again due to separatism. Tibet and the Muslim west would go, but perhaps also the south and the north would separate.

These fears of course forget that India, which has so many different people and ethnycities and religions, is a democracy, and isn't likely to collapse.

But this may bring other problems to the West: the fate of the Russian federation’s nuclear stockpile, China hegemonic expansion in post-Russia federation states. — neomac

But those are hypotheticals, just like the lie that if Americans withdraw from Afghanistan and leave the country to the Taliban, it will become a haven for terrorists. Well, has it?

And the American contribution in the war in Ukraine looks suspiciously too slow-paced and replete with mixed-signals. — neomac

In my view in similar line with France and Germany. It took a year for Germany to accept that other countries can give their Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. So talk about dragging their feet.

For the Europeans the future looks pretty grim, especially if they are not pro-active and coordinated in building their own foreign politics (like a “new deal“ with Africa? and South America?), and more autonomous in shaping their military security. — neomac

Europe is a confederation of independent nation states and will stay that way. They basically are far happy to have the US around. Yet Trump did spook them. The idea of the US leaving was raised discussion for example in the UK. The simple thing would be: Europe would arm itself more. Even if it arming itself already with a high rate.

Just look at how much Poland is doing:

(September 19th, 2022) Poland is buying almost 1,000 tanks, more than 600 pieces of artillery and dozens of fighter jets from South Korea, in part to replace equipment donated to Ukraine to help Kyiv fight the Russian invasion, the Polish Ministry of Defense told CNN on Tuesday.

The agreement, expected to be officially announced in Poland on Wednesday, will see Warsaw purchase 980 tanks based on the South Korean K2 model, 648 self-propelled K9 armored howitzers, and 48 FA-50 fighter jets, the ministry said. It would not confirm the value of the deal.

(AP, 1st Jan 2023) Officials said Poland is the first U.S. ally in Europe to be receiving Abrams tanks. Defence Minister Mariusz Błaszczak signed the $1.4 billion deal at a military base in Wesola, near Warsaw. The agreement foresees the delivery of 116 M1A1 Abrams tanks with related equipment and logistics starting this year. - The deal follows last year’s agreement for the acquisition of 250 upgraded M1A2 Abrams tanks that will be delivered in the 2025-2026 time frame. Poland is also awaiting delivery of American High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and has already received Patriot missile batteries.

Poland will start to produce the HIMARS system in country.

Exactly. But they couldn't succeed if the population at large didn't want to be led, right? — frank

Many times people aren't asked who leads them and try to stay away from the dangerous mess that is politics. If your country is a failed state, the biggest problem for you isn't who claims to be the leader.

And sometimes it is not even ask those who are put into power: for example emperor Claudius was put to be the fourth emperor of Rome, because the deaf limping guy was the last male in the family to survive the reign of Tiberius and Caligula. That he was found by the Praetorian guard hiding behind a curtain might really have happened.

Show me three dictatorships without individual, identifiable dictators having hijacked a system that was originally intended for the common good. — Vera Mont

Well, I can think of Vietnam (earlier North Vietnam), which after Ho Chi Minh hasn't had a similar father figure, but something like 14 different presidents (or something in that number). Then there is Myanmar, which has been ruled by generals for quite a while, not by one superior individual general. Either country isn't a democracy. A third one doesn't come to mind now, hence it's usual that a political movement that drives for political change by using dictatorial powers usually will end up with one individual as a dictator.

I don't understand. What perfect society? Which democracy makes it okay for leaders to be incompetent as long as they're not murderers? — Vera Mont

What I tried to say: in democracies people aren't always jubilantly happy about their elected leaders and there simply always is an opposition. That's why they change from time to time. And this is an inherent, structural issue in democracies: people have different ideas about what the best policies would be. Hence it's a fallacy that you could have an elected leadership that everybody, 100%, would approve.

In this case the best thing is that even if we don't accept all those that can win elections, at least they do have to share the founding principles of a justice state, starting from basics like people don't abuse their position of power, abide to the laws, and honor the democratic process.

Which is why I now do my most important banking where there is decent brick and mortar access. — Pantagruel

And you and me likely aren't alone. Which I think puts this to a more correct perspective: everything that theoretically could be replaced by AI, won't be replaced by AI and robots.

it might in fact flip the other way and be the last nail on the coffin for NATO. — Tzeentch

What history has told us with the failure and abolution of NATO's sister organizations, CENTO and SEATO, the real cause is not having any common objectives (and having revolutions, that put you against the US).

My expectation is that NATO will see a brief surge in unity as a result of the the Ukraine war — Tzeentch

Putin can still win, don't forget. If he gets that landbridge to Crimea (that he already has), he can argue it was worth it. And he can always point out that he faced the West alone, economies 40 times bigger than Russia "all attacking peaceful Russia, which then Russia victoriously defended".

Customer service - particularly technical support - is already in the shitter. Does it really matter if it drops out of the toilet bowl into the sewer? — Pantagruel

Think about it when it's your money, debts, financial investments, something quite important to you. Imagine your bank has no people that you can talk to.

I don't mind the grocery store being run by a computer. Even if the interactions there are easily handled by AI and robots, I simply wouldn't go and buy all my stuff from a service that doesn't have any people. I guess I assume I will be rich enough to decide that. But with larger issues, it sucks.

Or let's say would you be OK with a judicial system which would be totally run by smart AI, perhaps the first humans working on secondary courts / in appeals?

Excellent documentary! The obvious philosophical problem is that the simple AI hasn't actual artificial intelligence, cannot understand the context of the question.

And of course, modern states understand the propaganda value of either search engines or AI systems. They surely will want to control what is given to us as AI, because they can sit down and have a chat with the actual human beings who own and operate the AI system.

We're in no danger from AI any time soon.... — Pantagruel

What the real and present danger is the following.

Company CEO's and organization leaders have a "revolutionary" idea: Let's replace ALL customer service with AI. The cost benefits are amazing!

And then @Pantagruel, you have no choice, no ability to get what you want if the AI won't understand your question. There exist now many companies that offer services without any kind of way to contact them. And AI can be the answer to many more. Only hope for that niche entrepreneur who offers you actual humans for customer service.

I wouldn't like to be in Animal Farm at all.
Where we actually are, I don't get a lot of choices of where in society I would rather be. — Vera Mont

The problem with animal farm, as with marxism, is that there simply aren't any of those safety valves that you have in a democracy and in a justice state. Especially when you start with a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, you simply will get a dictatorship. Has happened so every time. People not agreeing with you aren't people, they are the enemy.

You might argue that every society has it's pigs leading us, but that's not the case. The pigs can act and behave quite differently. In a perfect society, we will feel that our pigs are incompetent in many things, but somewhat OK. Yet they aren't thieves and murderers. In a democracy, it doesn't get better than that.

People have inherently different objectives, agenda and ideas of how things work and what ought to be done. Yet the modern society gives those in power a lot of power, far more than the "Sun King" Louis XIV had in his time. Hence systems should be built to limit the powers of those that have it and have safety valves. Democracy as a safety valve can work. And can the separation of powers.

Egalitarianism, democracy and all these positive and morally just ideas can end up to be simple rhetoric that has nothing to do with reality. Power is so intoxicating for some that they will hold on to it until they die. All other desires, be that sex, fame, wealth, aren't so intoxicating. People will kill others for power, if they can achieve it with murder. Hence there simply has to be ground rules and idea in the minds of the leaders that they have power for a limited time and then it goes to the next people.

A system without those safety valves can easily create autocrats.

You blame Ukraine for this war. You justify the annexation by force of the Crimean peninsula (last example ). You oppose definitions of words in the dictionary.

That's enough of a clinical assessment of you.

So what price ssu? What level of human cost do you want to pay for this brilliant goal of creating a post-Afghanistan Russia? — Isaac

It's quite futile to argue with a person that totally declines to see the objectives of Russia in this war. (The actual ones declared by Putin himself)

If the war would stop on the lines that we have now, Putin can claim to have been victorious. Yet Putin can still hope that he gets more.

Sounds like you're on a warpath. Who should be next? China? — Tzeentch

A totally crazy idea.

China hasn't attacked anyone since 1979, and then it was it's former ally Vietnam. Before that China fought with the Soviet Union (hence the relationship hasn't been so great in hindsight, actuallly). It has a border dispute with India that has lead to border skirmishes, yes, but India isn't an ally of the US.

With Taiwan basically the civil war hasn't ended between the two sides: there is no armstice or no peace agreement. The state of war continued until 1979 between the two warring parties. There was a thawing period, but things have deteriorated after 2016. Yet unlike with North and South Korea, the two sides haven't come to shooting each other. Hence China has shown restraint.

The US hawks have for long craved to focus on China and to leave Europe. Unfortunately in Europe we do have a country, Russia, that doesn't accept the sovereignty of European countries and has attacked it's neighbors, unlike China. The posturing with China is the powerplay US has been committed, whereas in Europe you are dealing with actual present wars and hostile annexations of territories that have happened. The difference should be obvious to everybody.

Any idea how many lives your lovely plans would cost? — Tzeentch

Likely more when you drag a war to continue. For the war to stop Putin should achieve his objectives. And if Ukraine does fall and Putin can claim success, this will huge consequences. Above all, might makes right and Russia's imperialism works. The next step is then Moldova, Georgia and perhaps an "anshcluss" with Belarus. See here. And the totalitarian system in Russia will continue.

Wars can come to an end militarily. For example the civil war in Ethiopia ended, did you notice that? Yet Putin can still believe that the West will back down and he will be victorious. There are enough confused people in the West who think wars just go on eternally and look at the example of Afghanistan, which was a totally different war (an insurgency). Giving too little too late can make Putin to believe that this war can be successful. Ukraine cannot win the war with one modern tank battalion or with just 20 HIMARS systems. Political micromanaging will just lengthen the war.

Different peace scenarios and conditions are also influenced by a different understanding of the threat Russia poses to Ukraine. — neomac

How can some productive progress be made? — jorndoe

Supporting Ukraine would be productive:

Russia has made many times true progress after having disastrous defeats in wars that it has itself started.

- After the failure of the Crimean war, Russia later abolished serfdom. Had Russia been victorious, it perhaps might not have happened when it did.

- After the failure of the Russo-Japanese war, Russia experienced a revolution and took first steps towards democracy were made with the creation of the Duma, yet then came WW1.

- After the failure of the Polish-Russian war, the export of the Communist Revolution to Europe was set aside and only decades later after the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement Stalin continued the expansion of the Soviet realm.

- The defeat in Afghanistan is one reason for the Soviet Union to collapse, even if there are many others.

Best thing to happen to Russia would be a disastrous, humiliating defeat which would make to rethink just how sustainable is the present imperialism of Putin. Russia has already suffered more casualties than in all the wars it has fought post-WW2 combined. It has had to rely on drafting reservists to the war, hence this isn't something that the people will be ignorant about (as the American population can be when the military is an all-volunteer force).

Otherwise it will simply continue to be a potential threat to it's neighbors. Anyway, I think authoritarian dictatorships are bad and they should go. Modern day Russia has more political prisoners than Soviet Union had in it's later post-Stalinist era. The propaganda in Russia towards it's own people is surprisingly similar as it was during the last times Russian Empire.

Hence the solution would be to give Ukraine the ample resources to make this one of those defeats that Russia has suffered before... and has had to change course afterwards.

Let’s first clarify terminology. How do you understand the notion of “hegemonic”? And what constitute evidence of “hegemonic ambitions” to you? — neomac

Isaac has serious difficulties in understanding definitions of English. He doesn't accept the definition of "imperialism" in Merriam-Webster dictionary.

And how does he blame this war on the Ukrainians?

Pretending the world is something it's not.

I ought not have to worry about bad drivers, but if I send my kids out to play in the road, are you seriously suggesting I share none of the blame if an accident happens?

Ukraine ought to be able to enjoy its sovereignty without being threatened by powerful neighbours. Pretending that's how the world is when it blatantly isn't is reckless.

But then everyone knew that, back before we had to pretend we live in Disneyland. — Isaac

This is quite illogical, which doesn't actually surprise me.

So I guess that Isaac's answer to there being reckless drivers is to keep people inside and away from roads, because reckless/bad drivers just exist. Not people having to take driving lessons to have a driver's license that can be revoked, even face legal punishment for their actions alongside teaching children to be careful in traffic? Such actions have actually decreased the amounts of accidents compared to the traffic.

So with Isaac's words Ukraine's fault was that it "pretended the world to be something that it's not"? Too naive to trust what Russia agrees on a written formal agreement? Curious way how to blame Ukraine for this war.

Depends on who wins the US presidential election in 2024, right? — frank

Oooh... the omnipotent American President and the godly powers that he has to fix things in the World. Or create every problem there is or has been. Right? :smirk:

One year mark.

Few to go?

Am I the only person out here who feels that there is plenty of blame to spread around on both sides for causing this tragedy? — EricH

Please inform us what blame the Ukrainians have / the country of Ukraine has for this war.

The one "blame" I can think of is being so naive to give it's nuclear deterrence away and trust Russia (and the US and UK) for sticking to treaties they have signed. (In fact, Mearsheimer's earlier argument).

Yet I wouldn't blame a country of being so naive that believing when one Superpower, one ex-Superpower and a great power promise to uphold your territorial sovereignty.

I think the NATO expansion argument has been quite extensively been discussed. Very enthusiastically from a small part of the crowd here.

Besides your argument looks questionable for 2 reasons: on one side, it recommends not to be dismissive toward views alternative to the ones spread by mainstream outlets while suggesting to be definitely dismissive toward the mainstream outlets (“mainstream outlets can't be trusted (and they definitely can’t)” as if mainstream outlets are like astrologists). — neomac

When your argument is weak, that is something that you have to do.

Comes very well to mind how on this thread people believed Putin and laughed at American and Western warnings that Russia was going to invade Ukraine. The "alternative outlets" believed (as some PF members) that this was just hype that US was manufacturing.

Scott Ritter on prior to the Russian invasion (in December 2021): Russia won't invade Ukraine, it's a manufactured crisis (by the West) and if there would be war between Russia and Ukraine, Russia would defeat Ukraine in 6 to 7 days (If Ukraine made an attack in the Donbas). And so on...

the further we get from a plausible negotiating position on either side, which literally every expert consulted agrees is the only way out of this. — Isaac

The Treaty of Portsmouth is a perfect example what Russians can do when their war doesn't go the way they hoped.

You can't seriously expect me to take those sources seriously in the circumstances. — Isaac

I seriously don't consider you taking anything seriously. But I put the articles and links for others to look and make their mind, if they are interested on what Russia has actually done. You continue with your selected Mearsheimer quotes.

I just started to answer to your overall question:

how deep Russian influence operations in Ukraine went. — ssu

Evidence. — Isaac

But very well then, if you specifically want to about the coup 2022 attempt:

At the beginning of Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) and recruited ATO veterans attempted to overthrow the Ukrainian government and install pro-Russian rule in various cities for their further surrender to the Russian Army. The coup plan was ultimately cancelled following the detainment of its participants by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU).

Coup plan
Planning began no later than the summer of 2021. According to a detained agent who was set to participate in the coup, Russia was to send an appeal to current Ukrainian authorities and call on them to surrender; in the event that Ukraine declined, pro-Russian agents would stage a coup. The attempt would begin by creating incidents in Kyiv and along Ukraine's border with Transnistria, creating a pretext for invasion. Once the invasion started, agents would begin seizing administrative buildings in various Ukrainian cities, followed by the installation of pro-Russian leadership in them and the surrender and transfer of Ukrainian cities to Russian troops. Mass riots with the use of fake blood, clashing with law enforcement officers, terrorist attacks and assassination of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky were to also take place to further destabilize the situation. After the coup, the Verkhovna Rada would be dissolved and replaced by a pro-Russian "People's Rada" playing the role of a puppet government on the occupied territory of Ukraine and the newly created people's republics in Western Ukraine. A pro-Russian president was also to be installed in Ukraine.

The plan was eventually cancelled once the organiser and key persons of the plot were detained by the SBU in the Ivano-Frankivsk, Khmelnytskyi and Odesa Oblasts. Prior to their arrests, the agents managed to conduct one successful operation to ensure the capture of Chernobyl.

Of course, this coup attempt didn't happen as it was surfaced before. Naturally an unveiled coup plot has the obvious deniability of it not happening! And when there happened a full conventional invasion afterwards, possible coup plots aren't so important anymore. Other references:

More details emerge of alleged coup plot in Ukraine

Russia’s FSB agency tasked with engineering coups in Ukrainian cities, UK believes

Besides, it's totally logical for Putin to try a coup and when that option fails, the final "logical" option is an all-out conventional attack. Which happened on February 24th 2022.

But the obvious examples of the 2014 Ukrainian military leaders that became turncoats and landed in officer positions in the Russian military shows just how much ability to influence Ukraine Russia had. Hence the idea of a quick, short operation isn't as delirious as it now in hindsight can be seen.

A part of me wants to say the idea of owning anything is a bit of an illusion. — Mikie

Ownership is an agreement between humans that in part makes our society work. But of course you can teach for example your pet that what's yours it has to leave alone. And animals are territorial, so it's just not something related to us humans. When humans and animals share something in common, it's likely not an illusion. Of course, is this "ownership" is another question.

Evidence. — Isaac

Lol! :rofl:

Are you serious? Do you have any remote idea of Ukrainian post-Soviet history? You really think Russia hasn't meddled in Ukrainian politics? Or in your mind just the West and the US do it?

(Ahh.. I forget that I'm talking to a guy who insists that the definition in the dictionary for imperialism is wrong.)

First of all, Russia has obvious interests towards Ukraine, and unfortunately Putin's Russia has chosen an aggressive, violent imperialistic stance here, not to build warm relations with a country that it has so many ties with. And that's the real tragedy: this war didn't had to happen as the last Soviet leaders avoided a civil war when the Soviet Union collapsed and things didn't go as in Yugoslavia. But Putin did what he did. So there wouldn't be good, warm relations between two countries that have so much in common. These ties include (from one article):

Family ties. Russia and Ukraine have strong familial bonds that go back centuries. Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital, is sometimes referred to as “the mother of Russian cities,” on par in terms of cultural influence with Moscow and St. Petersburg. It was in Kyiv in the eighth and ninth centuries that Christianity was brought from Byzantium to the Slavic peoples. And it was Christianity that served as the anchor for Kievan Rus, the early Slavic state from which modern Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarussians draw their lineage.

Russian diaspora. Approximately eight million ethnic Russians were living in Ukraine as of 2001, according to a census taken that year, mostly in the south and east. Moscow claimed a duty to protect these people as a pretext for its actions in Crimea and the Donbas in 2014.

Superpower image. After the Soviet collapse, many Russian politicians viewed the divorce with Ukraine as a mistake of history and a threat to Russia’s standing as a great power. Losing a permanent hold on Ukraine, and letting it fall into the Western orbit, would be seen by many as a major blow to Russia’s international prestige. In 2022, Putin cast the escalating war with Ukraine as a part of a broader struggle against Western powers he says are intent on destroying Russia.

Crimea. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 to strengthen the “brotherly ties between the Ukrainian and Russian peoples.” However, since the fall of the union, many Russian nationalists in both Russia and Crimea longed for a return of the peninsula. The city of Sevastopol is home port for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, the dominant maritime force in the region.

Trade. Russia was for a long time Ukraine’s largest trading partner, although this link withered dramatically in recent years. China eventually surpassed Russia in trade with Ukraine. Prior to its invasion of Crimea, Russia had hoped to pull Ukraine into its single market, the Eurasian Economic Union, which today includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan.

Energy. Moscow relied on Ukrainian pipelines to pump its gas to customers in Central and Eastern Europe for decades, and it paid Kyiv billions of dollars per year in transit fees. The flow of Russian gas through Ukraine continued in early 2023 despite the hostilities between the two countries, but volumes were reduced and the pipelines remained in serious jeopardy.

Political sway. Russia was keen to preserve its political influence in Ukraine and throughout the former Soviet Union, particularly after its preferred candidate for Ukrainian president in 2004, Viktor Yanukovych, lost to a reformist competitor as part of the Orange Revolution popular movement. This shock to Russia’s interests in Ukraine came after a similar electoral defeat for the Kremlin in Georgia in 2003, known as the Rose Revolution, and was followed by another—the Tulip Revolution—in Kyrgyzstan in 2005. Yanukovych later became president of Ukraine, in 2010, amid voter discontent with the Orange government.

And for anyone that actually is interested to know more about these actions, here are some links:

THE IMPACT OF RUSSIA ON GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES IN UKRAINE

And since you likely won't read, just a quote from the 2008 paper:

Ukraine remains vulnerable to subversive Russian influence deriving from cultural, structural, organisational and societal similarities, as well as from a deep connection between the business elites and populations of both countries. Since the Orange revolution, Russian-Ukrainian relations were increasingly shaped by conflicting political processes under way in both countries with Russia aiming to retain Ukraine within its sphere of influence by creating and strengthening anti-western platforms inside the country.

Russian Preinvasion Influence Activities in the War with Ukraine

Russia's modern-day KGB started massively expanding its Ukraine unit years before the invasion, hinting at a Putin plot long in the making: report

And prior to February 24th 2022:

Why Ukrainian forces gave up Crimea without a fight - and NATO is alert

10 facts you should know about russian military aggression against Ukraine

And the list could go on and on...

You keep focusing on the number of deployed ground troops as if my argument essentially hinges on that. But that’s not what I argued (nice strawman). Russia might have had a complex strategy wrt Kiev (based on different possible scenarios), which include regime change. — neomac

Tzeentch keeps desperately trying to argue this, which just shows his total lack of understanding just how deep Russian influence operations in Ukraine went. Prior to the February 2022 assault, there likely was a coup attempt in the works in Ukraine, hence that card was on the table before the conventional attack (but didn't go anywhere). And Russia had lots of willing Quislings on it's side, starting perhaps from Viktor Yanukovich himself.

And one should notice that afterwards the FSB department responsible for handling covert operations in Ukraine had it's leaders "heads dropping" in the spring 2022, obviously showing that they had botched the operation. Unlike in 2014, when the coordination between the intelligence services and the armed forces succeeded brilliantly.

For sure. But this was often at play, Pauline Kael made a similar argument over 40 years ago in 'Why Are Movies So bad? Or, The Numbers'. She was politically incorrect and brazen. Obviously written before TV got good. — Tom Storm

Earlier it was the idea that the studios have the "blockbusters" and then you can dare to have something interesting on a "smaller" budget.

Best cast?

I'd go with what @Mikie noted, the Godfather.

Older era actors ensemble might be "A Bridge too Far", even if the film isn't great, but just good. (Thin Red line had also a stellar cast ...of men, not surprisingly.)

Pulp fiction had a good cast too.

Yeah, he actually did argue that Russia was a potential threat to Ukraine, at least back in the 1990s. Russia loves to cite his work in regards to NATO expansion but quite conveniently forgets to mention that right after the end of the Cold War, he also argued in favor of a Ukrainian nuclear deterrent. If only someone would remind Russia of this. Seriously. A deal where Ukraine gets eventual EU membership, Austria-style neutrality, and its own nuclear deterrent seems like a great deal for both Ukraine and the West and would be a viable alternative to Ukrainian NATO membership! — Xanatos

EU membership and Austria-style neutrality could have been a great option... prior to February 24th 2022.

Now Russia simply can repeat the Russo-Japanese war and accept something similar in the peace terms as in that war. Or then something similar to the Peace of Riga in 1921. There's ample examples of Russian wars that they have started and which haven't gone as well as they thought at first, but have ended in defeat.

Until the war of 2022 started, the financial and military flow from the US was constrained by 3 factors (type and volume of military aid, lack of wider support from the West), the political pressure from the West was constrained by the fact the Western Europeans wanted to keep their business with Russia (which Nord Stream 2 would have further encouraged) and by the fact that Russia could still pressure the Ukrainian domestic politics due to pro-Russian propaganda and parties. — neomac

Yes. Back then as Russia hadn't gone on an all-out conventional attack, worries about escalation were obvious... I remember especially the Obama administration was very worried about escalation. Prior last year there for example was no air warfare from the Russian side. Before the February 24th assault the military aid was more about other things than those that go boom, yet this aid consisted for example modern communications and radios and training, which are surprisingly important. Now it's nearly full spectrum assistance. The US has given about 26,7 billion dollars in military aid to Ukraine since February 24th of last year.

Let's put that to perspective: during 2001 to 2020 the US gave Afghanistan military aid about 81 billion (dollars in 2019 dollars). To Israel the US gives military aid about 3,8 billion dollars annually.

26,7 billion dollars is 40% of what Russia's defence spending in 2021 (66bn USD), before the special military operation.

Add to that what Ukraine gets from West Europe and other countries. European countries seem to want a decision from the US before they make the same decision (just as Germany did with finally accepting to send main battle tanks). Likely they don't want to be the sole country that "antes up" and faces the wrath of Putin.

I think that supports my claim.

Mearsheimer explains how controlling a country as large as Ukraine with 190,000 troops is military fantasy, especially considering the expected resistance from the Ukrainian population. It doesn't even come close. He even states he doesn't believe the Russians had any major territorial ambitions in Ukraine for the very same reasons. — Tzeentch

And how many troops did it take to grab Crimea?

Then the admiral charge of the Ukrainian navy joined the Russian fleet as an admiral, so the idea of the cakewalk to continue isn't so far fetched, especially when Russian intel had what seemed to be plenty of people "friendly to Russia", starting from the former chief of staff to the Ukrainian president and a personal friend of Putin, Viktor Medvedchuk (who later was swapped for Ukrainian POWs).

It's fantasy ...in hindsight. Remember that the West thought that the only defense that Ukraine could stage was an insurgency.

And Putin's anger at bad intel given to him was obvious, btw, from the way he handled with those in charge of Ukraine prior to the February invasion.

We're on the verge of entering a period of major geopolitical strife, in which Russia and China will likely band together against the U.S. to challenge its position as hegemon. — Tzeentch

China is correct to keep it's distance from Russia.

In fact for China to get closer to Russia just then alienates European countries and pushes them to have similar stance as the US has against China. For a long time European countries didn't have the aggressive stance that President Trump had against China. Russia will have to sell it's natural resources to China in any case now, so there's no reason to get behind the disastrous decisions that Putin made when invading head on Ukraine. There's far better ways to be a counterweight to the US, like with the BRICS.

The US always will have these fears and angry fits about a potential competitor taking it's lead position. In the 1980's the fear was Japan, now it's China. Far better for the Chinese communists to keep their cool when it comes to the US and get their economy in order. Bullying at your neighbors will just make things worse. The worst thing possible to do is to use a Sino-US conflict as a distraction to domestic economic problems. Previous Chinese leaders were far better in this.

Australia, or the Chinese - Australian relations, are a great example of this. Covid-19 was (and is) a disaster for China. That really put a strain on Australian - Chinese relations as Australia demanded an independent inquiry on covid and then China decided to take retaliatory measures with sudden tariffs and bans on Australian exports. This likely drove Australia to the AUKUS agreement.

Stop referring to Mearsheimer when he says something about Russia being a potential threat to Ukraine in the 1990's. Mearsheimer can be only quoted or referred when he argues now that this war happened because of the US. :wink: