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. — Apollodorus

The problem is that not all Americans (as in: American citizens) are the same, nor are all Russians (as in: Russian citizens), or all Germans (as in: German citizens), and so on. Nations don't exist as homogenous, unified entities, so using the national name can sometimes be misleading.

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.

Can you come up with a good reason as to why people shouldn't do that?
I'm asking this in earnest, because from what I've seen, people generally don't see this as a problem. They don't seem to see a problem in having a lot of money and fancy education titles to their names, while in their heart, they are lumpenproletariat.

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. — dclements

No, it has nothing to do with socialism/communism. It has to do with common decency.

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 . — dclements

While more and more people in the Western capitalist paradise have to wear diapers to work and literally piss and shit in their pants because they don't get to take a bathroom break. Not to mention how normal it has become to live in constant fear of losing your job. In the Western capitalist paradise!

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. — Paine

You are forgetting that the Orthodox Church doesn't work the same way as the Roman Catholic Church (or the Protestant churches).

The Orthodox do not and cannot make a claim to divine justification and infallibility, while the Roman Catholics do (as do Protestants).

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. — ssu

In regards to what is at stake for China to invade Taiwan, look at that map to see how much China imports from Taiwan.
China already has the problem of cutting their nose to spite the face because of the importance of Taiwanese investment along with its place in the supply chain for their products. Invading Tiawan won't transfer their market share to China, especially if the invasion destroys infrastructure on the scale of the ongoing leveling of Ukraine.

I acknowledge the difference but there is the legitimacy that is conveyed by having the Patriarch shake pom-poms for Putin's agenda.

Not in the context of the patriarch's fallibility.
An Orthodox patriarch is not the same as the Roman pope. If the pope advertises something, then this comes with the blessing of his infallibility*, while this is not the case with a patriarch.



(*Some limitations apply; the pope's infallibility applies only to matters such as faith.)

Yes, I just agreed with that.

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

Yeah, that video pretty much sums up most of it. The main part is that people genuinely seem to be unable to understand that reasons don't equal justification. Putin can delude himself and his minions all he wants with his reasons, but there's nothing about Nato expansion nor his dreams of the old Russian empire that justifies any kind of invasion or war of any kind.

It all boils down to a simple question of national freedom: does an independent nation have the freedom to build its own security, including joining a security alliance? If the answer is no, then people can argue for Putin's justifications. If the answer is yes, then the debate is over and Putin is essentially the bad guy here. If no, then that leads to a whole bunch of follow-up questions that need to be addressed. What Russia wants, what it fears, how delusional it is about Nato or whatever argument there is for Putin's justification, it doesn't matter because, as the video ends with, Putin proved the justification for Nato's existence. It even forced Sweden and Finland to radically change opinions 180 about their will to join Nato. If Russia could just, like, fucking stay within their borders and do whatever they want in there, that's totally fine, then Sweden and Finland wouldn't have to think about Nato like this. But since Putin threatens the world as he does, even if that is just his Russian bullying bullshit methods, it really justifies having an alliance of security against such lunacy. There's no justification that can be done on Russia's or Putin's part, none.

If Russia wants to be alone, they can be alone, no one really cares about them as a nation, especially not now. If Russia wants to be cared about, if they want to be a global player, then no one is actually stopping them from it. It's just that they have to be involved with lots of globalization things that they just didn't like. And they can't have the cake and eat it too. They either join the rest of the globalized world, be a true partner, someone people likes, not someone they fear. Or they go down the route they've gone down now, to be someone to fear, to gain "respect" through that. It's bullying mentality really, the gangster/mafia method of gaining respect. It also means no one wants to deal with them anymore, no one wants criminals around them. If someone is consistently acting like a criminal, bullying, beating people up, and never stops even when everyone tells them to chill, then in the end people will turn their backs. To then be pissed because people don't trust them, to be pissed that people want security from them, so pissed that they attack in full force... that isn't in any shape or form justified. It only justifies their own demise and gives every justification for an alliance of security.

I find it remarkable the amount of defense Russia and Putin get on this forum. From the uneducated, the illogical apologists and the confused irrationals, not seeing how actually non-complicated things have become by the acts of Putin and Russia. We now have much more insight into Russia and Putin than ever, fully seeing what he has built up towards. Over the years there's been lots of apologists as well as fear-mongers and the discussions and debates have been raging without any real conclusions being able to be drawn since neither side had much to back anything up. This war really sided with the fear mongers, there's no question Putin lived up to their arguments and ideas. But still, the debate is ongoing for some reason. It's hard to look at bombed children and think there's any grey area to the justification Putin had for this invasion. It's crystal clear he's become the first superpower dictator since the cold war or even WWII. And there's no defending that, however people think they're clever arguing for it.

I 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. — Paine

I more or less agree, I think.

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. — Apollodorus

Well just because the US and her allies really didn't do much when other countries may have invaded their neighbors doesn't mean that those invasions where "ok". There is an old saying "you can't catch every bird that falls from the sky". While the Western powers have vast resources and sometimes try to act like the police of the world, it doesn't mean they can afford to either try to fix any and every problem that comes up or even bother to get involved with them. And if claim that they only really want to get involved with issues that are tied to something that is important to them then the answer is "yes" but that is basically true of any country that has ever existed.

As to why it is important for the US to get involved when Russia (the country with the second largest military in the world) starts using it's military to take over other countries, I think it should obvious to anyone that knows anything about World War I, World War II, the Cold War, NATO, and Russian history. As to why it is important US and European nations national security as to the events unfolding in Ukraine right now. It is plausible that you don't see it as a security issue, but since that would be quite a different view point to anyone who is responsible for their nations security and faced with dealing with the problems of Russia invading.

Maybe if you can explain why you don't see the Ukraine conflict as being important to US or NATO, I could address whatever issue you are trying to raise.

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. — Apollodorus

There is hardly anyone still alive who lived through World War II and it has been hard for some countries to justify having and maintaining large armies that would be ready for anything like what happened back then. And just because a few extra countries join NATO doesn't mean it is anything like when a country start taking over other countries like when Germany did during world War II. If I have a gardening club and get a few extra people to join it, it doesn't mean I have gained some major power in doing so.

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. — Apollodorus

I don't think the US military industrial complex ever really cared if Russia wanted to join NATO or not. If anything, they were likely more happier before Russia fell and they could always scare people of the "big old boogey man" that Russia appeared to be during the Cold War. However after 9/11 we starting having the "War on Terrorism" as well as the wars in the middle east. Unfortunately we were not facing the kind of armies over there where high tech military hardware is really effective against but I guess beggars sometimes can't be choosers.

But now that Putin and those that support him in Russia have shown that they are willing to use military force to bully their neighbors, we are now back to the good old Cold War days again and we are again facing a rival that justifies us spending whatever we can on revamping our military again. If I was someone that owned a major share of General Dynamics or other similar company I would want to send Putin a large bouquet of flowers and a thank you note, if I wouldn't get in trouble for doing so.

In the end, I imagine Putin/Russia is more playing into into the US/NATO's hand more than undermining them in any way since the US and NATO need someone to play the bad guy in order to justify the cost of them maintaining a military industrial complex the size that they have. Then again if Putin didn't do it, it is possible that China would have ended up doing the same thing as so as they invaded Taiwan.

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. — Apollodorus

I haven't seen anything you or anyone else has said that really makes it seem like Kolomoisky is "evil" other then possibly being nothing but a pawn of Western countries. If he is as bad as you say I would need to see some proof before I could believe he is anything like people such as Putin or Stalin.

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. — Apollodorus

Well I guess you got your wish since both Russia and China are trying to become a super power that rivals the US and are either using or considering using military action in doing so. :D

Just hope that between these wars that none of them involve NBC weapons or any (or all) of these "free and independent countries" turn into something out of 1984. Even if the world is multipolar, it doesn't mean that those in power in any given country will treat it's people any better. I think the conditions in Russia, China, and as well as the United States (as well as many other countries) is proof of that. While a multipolar would might make it a little harder for one dictator for to have too much power and getting something like a God complex., I think people like Putin, Stalin, and Adolf Hitler shows that it doesn't do that much to prevent it.

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

I think you misread what I said. I did say that the US and her allies concentrate on their own security more then the security of others, but I didn't say that they do it in a way that is a blatant double standard in regard to other countries or at least not that as far as I can tell. However as I said elsewhere in tis thread this is pretty much true of all other countries that have had to deal with national security issues through out the world.

Do I think the US was right to have go into Vietnam, two wars in Iraq, and the rest of the stuff we did in the middle east? Not really, but I don't think what we did was quite as bad as what Russia is doing in Ukraine nor have we threaten other countries with nuclear weapons if they merely provide some kind of help/aid to our enemies.

I hope you understand the vast difference between what I'm saying and what it seems like you think I'm saying. If you understand the US and it's foreign policy you would likely know why we are not exactly the "good guys" but I think it is a pretty much a given that we are not exactly the "bad guys" either or at least not in the way Hilter and Stalin where.

I don't know if I'm making myself clear enough and/or if you disagree with what I'm saying and you feel that the "West (feels like it is) fully entitled to undermine the safety of others, but others may not even defend themselves". If so please explain your position so I know what you are saying and feel free to bring up anything bad/evil that the US has ever done. I don't think it can shock me any more than what I have already read about.

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. — Christoffer

You may claim to be "Swedish", but your claim is insufficient to conclude that you are not from the Finnish outback.

Ergo, you have failed to provide valid premises for your conclusion.

Very simple, IMO. :wink:

Anyway,

American imperialism consists of policies aimed at extending the political, economic and cultural influence of the United States over areas beyond its boundaries. Depending on the commentator, it may include military conquest, gunboat diplomacy, unequal treaties, subsidization of preferred factions, economic penetration through private companies followed by a diplomatic or forceful intervention when those interests are threatened, or regime change – Wikipedia

Nations don't exist as homogenous, unified entities, so using the national name can sometimes be misleading. — baker

Correct. But given that America is the world’s largest economy and consumer market, that the US dollar is the primary international trade currency, that America controls the World Bank, IMF, NATO, etc., I think when we say, for example, “America dominates the world’s economy or finances”, everyone knows what is meant.

I think the sanctions imposed on Russia show quite clearly that the world is largely controlled by economic and financial interests the majority of whom are headquartered in the US: World Bank (Washington), IMF (Washington), IFC (Washington), etc.

The solution seems to be to restore greater freedom and independence to individual nation-states, however we choose to define them.

Can you come up with a good reason as to why people shouldn't do that?
I'm asking this in earnest, because from what I've seen, people generally don't see this as a problem. They don't seem to see a problem in having a lot of money and fancy education titles to their names, while in their heart, they are lumpenproletariat. — baker

Well, if people don’t see it as a problem, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t one. IMO it doesn’t make sense to speak of “freedom”, “democracy”, “human rights”, etc. and at the same time promote a system that takes people’s freedom away and keeps them chained to itself like dogs to a kennel.

In fact, people are worse than chained dogs as the dogs can see the chains, but people don’t see the strings that tie them to the system and act en masse as commanded by the global media. :smile:

And acting out of ignorance (or denial) doesn’t seem like an ideal situation ....



Well, all I can see there is double standards. If we want Ukraine to be independent from Russia, why don’t we also want Tibet to be independent from China, Kurdistan to be independent from Turkey, Germany (and the rest of Europe) to be independent from America, etc., etc.?

As for Kolomoisky, he is basically like a very wealthy mafia boss with links to the criminal world and influence on Ukrainian politics.

Bogolyubov and Kolomoisky fostered strong reputations as corporate raiders in the mid-2000s, becoming notorious for a series of hostile takeovers. Hostile takeovers Ukrainian style, that is, which often included the active involvement of Privat’s quasi-military teams. These schemes included, among others, a literal raid on the Kremenchuk steel plant in 2006, in which hundreds of hired rowdies armed with baseball bats, iron bars, gas and rubber bullet pistols and chainsaws forcibly took over the plant.
Privat Group has been involved in several court cases and arbitration proceedings in the US, UK, and Sweden. In 2009, a US court made clear its distrust of Privat representatives: “the Court has become increasingly skeptical of these gentleman [at Privat] and the credibility of their statements.”

An Injection Of Rule Of Law For Ukrainian Business? Oligarch's Lawsuit Could Help Improve The Culture Of Business Dealings In The Post Soviet Space – Forbes

The Times describes Kolomoysky’s private militia as one of Ukraine’s most powerful military groups:

In the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, Mr. Kolomoisky played a positive role for Ukraine in financing one of the largest and most effective paramilitary units fighting the Russian military intervention, at a time when the regular army was in shambles. Mr. Kolomoisky’s militia, Dnipro, held a section of the battle front west of the city of Donetsk.

U.S. Sanctions Key Ukrainian Oligarch - New York Times

According to the Pandora Papers:

Zelensky and his television production partners were beneficiaries of a web of offshore firms that allegedly received $41 million in funds from Kolomoisky’s Privatbank

And The Times:

Mr. Kolomoisky’s television station supported Mr. Zelensky in the 2019 presidential election … Mr. Zelensky’s spokeswoman published an article saying he plans to diminish the role of the oligarchs in Ukraine’s politics. But that is no simple matter. Mr. Kolomoisky controls a faction in Mr. Zelensky’s political party, the Servant of the People, without which the party would not have a majority in Parliament ….

U.S. Sanctions Key Ukrainian Oligarch, Ihor Kolomoisky - The New York Times

The fact that Kolomoisky is “not as evil as Stalin” is neither here nor there, as it isn't a criterion to establish evil. What is certain is that he is sufficiently evil for the Ukrainian people to have voted for Zelensky to get rid of him and other oligarchs. Unfortunately, he and other members of his criminal fraternity are still there.

In any case, as I said already, most of this has been discussed on the other thread and there is little point to repeat it here ....

Yeah, that video pretty much sums up most of it. The main part is that people genuinely seem to be unable to understand that reasons don't equal justification. Putin can delude himself and his minions all he wants with his reasons, but there's nothing about Nato expansion nor his dreams of the old Russian empire that justifies any kind of invasion or war of any kind.

It all boils down to a simple question of national freedom: does an independent nation have the freedom to build its own security, including joining a security alliance? If the answer is no, then people can argue for Putin's justifications. If the answer is yes, then the debate is over and Putin is essentially the bad guy here. If no, then that leads to a whole bunch of follow-up questions that need to be addressed. What Russia wants, what it fears, how delusional it is about Nato or whatever argument there is for Putin's justification, it doesn't matter because, as the video ends with, Putin proved the justification for Nato's existence. It even forced Sweden and Finland to radically change opinions 180 about their will to join Nato. If Russia could just, like, fucking stay within their borders and do whatever they want in there, that's totally fine, then Sweden and Finland wouldn't have to think about Nato like this. But since Putin threatens the world as he does, even if that is just his Russian bullying bullshit methods, it really justifies having an alliance of security against such lunacy. There's no justification that can be done on Russia's or Putin's part, none. — Christoffer

I believe I more or less agree with everything you said. Back when the USSR was collapsing if they handled it in some way similar to what China did, there would have been very little the West could do about it. But they didn't and now they are likely not anywhere as nearly as powerful as they were when they were still the USSR. And of course over the years there have been many other events that have undermined their efforts in maintaining their "Super Power" status.

However just because someone was once a super power and wants to become a super power again doesn't mean that they can just go to war with any country in the world and not have to face consequences for doing so. Yes, Russia and the other countries that still support them us to be the USSR and Russia is still a nuclear power with the second largest military in the world but I think that any politician that understands world history knows that giving bullies what they want just emboldens them to want more and more just as it did with Hilter in WW II.

I know the "Hilter doctrine" (ie. basically trying to stop any would-be power hungry dictator grabbing other countries as soon as possible if they threaten US national security) has many flaws as it has likely has drawn the US into unnecessary wars in the past. However in the case of the Ukraine, we can not ignore what is going on there nor assume that if Putin gets what he wants that Russia will stop there.

Also Putin has to be crazy if he thinks the US/NATO will not want to get involved. There is nothing like the threat of war and/or the possibility of being taken over by some country like Russia or China to galvanize Western countries to start mobilizing and getting ready to fight. Japan made that mistake in WWII and it is hard for me to believe that any country that that wishes to threaten either the US or NATO countries that we would what to back down if faced with the prospect of war.

If Russia wants to be alone, they can be alone, no one really cares about them as a nation, especially not now. If Russia wants to be cared about, if they want to be a global player, then no one is actually stopping them from it. It's just that they have to be involved with lots of globalization things that they just didn't like. And they can't have the cake and eat it too. They either join the rest of the globalized world, be a true partner, someone people likes, not someone they fear. Or they go down the route they've gone down now, to be someone to fear, to gain "respect" through that. It's bullying mentality really, the gangster/mafia method of gaining respect. It also means no one wants to deal with them anymore, no one wants criminals around them. If someone is consistently acting like a criminal, bullying, beating people up, and never stops even when everyone tells them to chill, then in the end people will turn their backs. To then be pissed because people don't trust them, to be pissed that people want security from them, so pissed that they attack in full force... that isn't in any shape or form justified. It only justifies their own demise and gives every justification for an alliance of security. — Christoffer

I could be wrong but I believe that those in power in both Russia and China will not be happy until they are a Super Power that is able to rival the US and her allies, or at least until it becomes impossible to do so.

For those who have money and power, it is almost never enough to just have what you already have. I believe it is something that regular plebs like you, me, and about 99.9% of the rest of the population can not understand unless we are something like a psychologist that studies such issues. Power can be like a drug and the more you have it, the more you want even more of it. Also people that are part of the elite few that have so much power, morality because something different then what the rest of the population thinks it is. You can get away with more things because you basically an army of people to protect you and shield you from either the law or other people that might want to come after you. To be honest, I can hardly imagine how such people even begin to think other than that the other 99.9% of the population are merely either cattle or mere tools to be used in order for them to get what they want.

I know this doesn't really explain why Putin (or those that support him) are now invading Ukraine other then it is possible that Putin might be ill and/or they regret that they didn't do enough action when the USSR collapsed and that they reached a tipping point where they can no longer sit by as whatever used to be the USSR continues to get less and less powerful/influential. I could be wrong but this could be the "all or nothing" moment where they no longer feel they can sit by and play by the same rules that the US and the rest of the world plays by. If so then it could get a lot worse before things get better.

I find it remarkable the amount of defense Russia and Putin get on this forum. From the uneducated, the illogical apologists and the confused irrationals, not seeing how actually non-complicated things have become by the acts of Putin and Russia. We now have much more insight into Russia and Putin than ever, fully seeing what he has built up towards. Over the years there's been lots of apologists as well as fear-mongers and the discussions and debates have been raging without any real conclusions being able to be drawn since neither side had much to back anything up. This war really sided with the fear mongers, there's no question Putin lived up to their arguments and ideas. But still, the debate is ongoing for some reason. It's hard to look at bombed children and think there's any grey area to the justification Putin had for this invasion. It's crystal clear he's become the first superpower dictator since the cold war or even WWII. And there's no defending that, however people think they're clever arguing for it. — Christoffer

I'm guessing some are either just trying to play the devil's advocate or perhaps they don't understand the situation that well. It is possible that some of them actually have some kind of anti-US position, but I don't imagine it is likely any of those kind of people would both debating here.

I'm also guessing that some people don't realize that this war can keep escalating from what it already is or has become. It is unlikely that this is really an "all or nothing" for Putin and those that support him, but it was also believed that it was very unlikely Russia would invade Ukraine in the first place. Right now people are going about their lives much as they have during any other time, but a few weeks ago Putin made a threat that he might use nuclear weapons if either the West interfered or if things didn't go his way in Ukraine. Such a threat may be just a little sabre rattling from his side, but I believe it may be a glimpse into what is going on in his mind and in Russia.

I believe during the Cold War while there always was the threat of nuclear war, no US or Russian leader would directly threaten to use them if they couldn't get what they wanted. I don't know if it was because such a danger was a given or because of the problems of openly threatening using nukes (as well as biological or chemical weapons) would create or perhaps both. However Putin felt it was NECESSARY to make such a threat, and that was almost at the beginning of the invasion when things just started to not go his way.

Perhaps part of the reason may have been that since we haven't been living in a Cold War until recently, most people don't even have any understanding of what NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) weapons are or what a war that involves them would be like and Putin's threat was just a kind of "friendly" reminder to so of us in the West what might happen if for some reason we start going down that path. The other possibility is that those on the Russian side are more than ready and willing to use such means to get what they want if things are not going to plan then the US and our allies are aware of.

One of the better aspects of NBC weapons is usually the damage done by them is so horrible that it is very hard to deal with by any military or civilian force if they are hit by them, unlike conventional weapons that are no so bad in comparison. Because of this usually a country that has NBCs but a army that is relatively weak might be able to hold off another country that has a larger army if that country is afraid of their NBC capabilities and their willingness to use them. In the case of two countries that both have NBC capabilities and a large military, often both sides are reluctant to fight because of the consequences for either are to much. I could be wrong but I believe there hasn't been a third world war yet mainly because of the problems that are caused when a country uses NBC type weapons.

The drawback to this is when in a conflict between two countries that have NBCs, when one (or perhaps both) sides are ready to use them regardless of what the consequences would bring. Luckily this problem hasn't happened yet in history (as far as I know of) as it has been all but a given that anyone that has been in a position of power to use nukes (or considered the other two options) really hasn't gone down that path. I don't know if this is because they are too afraid of what might happen and/or there has never been a good enough reason to use them. The only problem remains is when someone is crazy enough to try it and if Putin is really one of these people.

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. — Christoffer

I think there simply has to be already a fancy term for this.

But it's basically that leaders start believing their own lies. They gather around themselves "a team" of yes-men that most vividly regurgitate these lies and make them better. In the end, the lie that they sometime earlier knew to be a convenient lie becomes really the truth, the holy cause that fate has given them to do. Their destiny.

Her is another video I found that might help explain some of the issues involving the invasion of Ukraine:

It also means no one wants to deal with them anymore, no one wants criminals around them. — Christoffer

Nobody ever wanted them to begin with. They have always been treated as third class people. To whatever extent they were accepted, it was all conditional. Russians (and Slavic people in general) have always been expected to earn the respect of the Westerners, while the Westerners feel entitled to getting respect from others without ever earning it.

This skewed dynamic is at the core of this whole conflict, and many others.

Nobody ever wanted them to begin with. They have always been treated as third class people. To whatever extent they were accepted, it was all conditional. Russians (and Slavic people in general) have always been expected to earn the respect of the Westerners, while the Westerners feel entitled to getting respect from others without ever earning it.

This skewed dynamic is at the core of this whole conflict, and many others. — baker

It's kind of natural that people are skeptical towards populations in nations that have consistently shown questionable national behavior, the same way everyone viewed Germany after WWII. But plenty did in fact have bright thoughts of the future for Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed. After a brief fear of a new world war at the time, things were looking better. As the economy recovered in Russia there were plenty of open arms between the West and Russia.

But then Putin began to bring back that distrust through his behavior. And while silencing all people in Russia who really wanted Russia to be a modern nation with good relations to other nations all around the world, it brought back all that distrust in the West. It's important to remember that the Russian fear of being invaded is just a delusion and that delusion pushing the hands of Russia to isolate from the West is still on them, it's not our fault. If the entire culture is built around state media propaganda, silencing critics, pushing down on free speech and so on, that will bleed into a national image others have of them.

It's like that feedback loop that happens with segregated people concentrated in a neighborhood leading to higher crime rates. If the city and politics built into this pressure cooker, if lots of bad policies and systemic racism brought forth this concentration of segregated people in a poor neighborhood that then led to crime, it then feeds into the culture of that neighborhood so that people then start living within the racist concepts other people have of them. At some point, it just becomes a never-ending cycle where politicians and other citizens do nothing to help the neighborhood and the people of the hood isolating themselves and creating a culture around the negative image people have of them. At some point, things need to stop, on both sides.

The West hasn't really done Russia anything wrong since the Soviet Union fell and so many new collaborations with the rest of the world, so many open arms to create something new, but Russia just couldn't let go of the Soviet mentality. The distrust of the West is understandable, but when the West opened arms to Russia while being criticized by experts who said "don't trust Russia", it actually was that kind of one-sided stop to the cycle that was needed. But Russia just couldn't get with that program and fell into its old habit. And now we're back into Cold War territory again.

This is why I say that the only way for Russia to quickly come into the warmth again would be by revolution, french style. There needs to be a great flush to rid Russia of old farts who keep living in old early 20th century ideals. Russia needs younger, modern Russians to take over.

Why can't the Soviet Union just... die already? It's like the old relative that gets all diseases possible but still just stands up and continues screaming at younger generations.

My point is that many did actually, pretty fast as well, embrace the concept of a new Russia and let go of the distrust, but Putin kind of fucked that up royally over the years, especially with the crown jewel of shit that is this invasion.