Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[EmperorBatman999]

Pretending that post-1991 former USSR bordergore is sacred and can't be changed is silly.
On itself, these borderlines are result of Bolshevik dictatorship (which was funded into power by Kaiser Germany and American banks so there's your Western meddling) re-carving Russian Empire into "socialist republics", they didn't reflect neither ethnic, nor religious nor cultural differences of people that lived there. Hence why Donbass was annexed to Ukraine with no consent from its population, same with Crimea. In a similar way, we saw colonial powers draw up Middle Eastern borders in just same disastrously and horrific way(since it led to inevitable wars in future).
So it makes perfect sense for Russian people to consider at least part of Ukraine their clay, if Ukrainians have a right for independence from Russia, then Novorussians should have a right to independence from Ukraine.

The concern is about whether Putin will want to stop at annexing Novorussiya and confirming Crimea. He may, for example, want to secure a land connection to Crimea, which means taking all or most of the eastern bank of the Dnieper. Of course, the more "core" Ukrainian land he takes, the more he risks a long-term insurgency against Ukrainian partisans, a war that that is likely to be highly unpopular in Russia and one that will damage the stability of the Federation, especially if it inspires the Chechens and other dissident groups to give uprisings another shot. Furthermore, and particularly if Ukraine completely folds within the first days of the attack, it is likely he wish push on to Kiev and establish a puppet regime against the sovereign wishes of the rest of Ukraine.

I don't have high hopes for Ukraine in this regard; the Russians have an overwhelming superiority of armor and aircraft, both of which will excel on the Ukrainian plains. Russian air superiority will be assured, and as we've known since World War II, whoever holds air superiority also controls the battle.

[Ludicus]

Further, I wish people would stop quoting Stiglitz (and by extension Piketty and Krugman) on everything

I’m astounded at this comment...I have carefully reread all my posts on this topic. What you are saying is a confabulation.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

When someone confabulates, they are confusing things they have imagined with real memories. A person who is confabulating is not lying.

academic consensus no longer supports their claims.

The academic neoliberal consensus.Once again- don’t change the subject.

[Heathen Hammer]

The concern is about whether Putin will want to stop at annexing Novorussiya and confirming Crimea. He may, for example, want to secure a land connection to Crimea, which means taking all or most of the eastern bank of the Dnieper. Of course, the more "core" Ukrainian land he takes, the more he risks a long-term insurgency against Ukrainian partisans, a war that that is likely to be highly unpopular in Russia and one that will damage the stability of the Federation, especially if it inspires the Chechens and other dissident groups to give uprisings another shot. Furthermore, and particularly if Ukraine completely folds within the first days of the attack, it is likely he wish push on to Kiev and establish a puppet regime against the sovereign wishes of the rest of Ukraine.

I don't have high hopes for Ukraine in this regard; the Russians have an overwhelming superiority of armor and aircraft, both of which will excel on the Ukrainian plains. Russian air superiority will be assured, and as we've known since World War II, whoever holds air superiority also controls the battle.

As I said before, best way to handle this for Russia is to bypass oligarch government in Kiev and make a deal directly with Ukrainian nationalists. That way latter can have their desired ethnostate, Novorussians can become independent or join Russia, that way everybody wins (except for Kiev oligarchs lol).
Overall, it would be smart for Russians to do away with Sovietic nostalgia and become the nationalist power alternative to EU and woo over European nations, that recently became disillusioned with neoliberal globalism.

[Ludicus]

The problem with Ukraine is the fact that the country is split by its population/language.

Double Talk: Why Ukrainian Fight Over Language - Faculty of Ottawa

As a whole, Ukraine is a bilingual state. But on the ground in southeastern Ukraine, it verges on unilingual: Anyone who has spent time in cities of eastern Ukraine can attest to the fact that Ukrainian is rarely heard publicly and that Ukrainian speakers who wish to converse with civil servants in Ukrainian will hardly ever succeed. (The reverse is true in Western Ukraine). The stark divide is why the language question has been so central to Ukrainian politics since its independence in 1991.

Why? well, it’s not difficult to understand.The author (professor in the Political Science department at University of Ottawa) then goes on to say,
“If people accustomed to speak Russian are told they can use Russian in all situations, then they will and speakers of the other language have to accommodate”.

A couple of weeks ago, Language Law For National Print Media Comes Into Force In In Ukraine

A language law came into force in Ukraine on January 16 that requires all national print media to be published in the country’s official language, Ukrainian, in a bid to push back against the use of the Russian language in the public sphere. The law, adopted in 2019, does not ban publication in Russian but stipulates that a parallel Ukrainian version of equal scope and circulation must be published, too.
It’s not considered a profitable option for publishers in the shrinking market for print media. Supporters of the law say it will strengthen national identity. Critics argue that it could disenfranchise the country’s native Russian speakers. Russian is spoken mostly in urban areas.

In the end, the author implicitly recognizes that Ukraine has failed to create national identity: "Some say that Russia’s meddling in Ukraine may spur what Ukraine has failed to create in 20 years: national unity"

[Sir Adrian]

And both sides want to violently repress everybody who is speaking a different language, including the ethnic minorities.

[Legio_Italica]

We don’t have to wonder where Putin’s head is at. He wrote a long form essay romanticizing the Russian Empire and lamenting its division by “external forces.” You may notice that maps of the Russian Empire or of the Soviet Union in their respective glory days look very different from current maps. The question isn’t what Putin’s ambitions are, it’s what the west is willing to do to stop him. If we’re not willing to do WW3 to stop him like we did WW2 to stop German and Japanese to imperial ambitions, then we must be prepared to accept Putin’s premises. Threats and chest thumping is escalation, not a plan. Putin has already been given rhetorical pretext by the expansion of NATO, and pursuing the latter as an end in itself will not make the Kremlin less expansionist.

[Ludicus]

And both sides want to violently repress everybody who is speaking a different language, including the ethnic minorities.

That's true.Well, even in our western world, there is a steady rise in authoritarianism, populism, and xenophobia.

As I said before, best way to handle this for Russia is to bypass oligarch government in Kiev.

An oligarch regime bypassing another oligarchic regime.

U.S., U.K. Prepare Plans to Sanction Russian Oligarchs

Thinking about it, why would we call the Ukrainian and Russian rich "oligarchs" but those of the West "billionaires"? it’s a fair question.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I’m "forbidden" ( j/k...not true) to quote Piketty in this thread, “the academic fraud, paid by the European Union”, according to Russian sources,because he wrote “Inequality and Property in Russia”. I’m afraid that they don’t understand anything they read.He also wrote about inequality in China, and guess what, his book was banned.
But in the end, he criticizes western tendency to justify the wealth of billionaires as merited and the product of innovation, as opposed to the "extractive" wealth of oligarchs in unfree societies.In fact he thinks that the distinction is much more blurred than what is usually thought. Like Russian oligarchs, Bezos and Musk do not pay taxes. As ProPublica showed in 2021, US billionaires pay almost no federal income tax.

[Heathen Hammer]

There is nothing wrong with "romanticizing" Russian Empire, a nation that brought incredible progress to humanity in both culture and science as well as serving as protector of Western civilization from both external(ottoman attacks) and internal threats (French revolutionaries).
Without a doubt, 1917 coups were the biggest tragedy not just for Russia, but for the whole civilized world. But it is very important to understand that seeds of bolshevism were not sown by Russians - this political disease was imported into Russia by foreign bankers and governments.
The question shouldn't be about "stopping" Russia, but to rather come to terms with the fact that Pax-Americana was neither perfect nor is permanent and some things that were established in past century are very far from being permanent.
At the end of the day, Russia is simply mitigating mistakes made by communist dictators - ironically something cold war globalist warhawks in Washington seem to intend to preserve.

[PointOfViewGun]

There is nothing wrong with "romanticizing" Russian Empire, a nation that brought incredible progress to humanity in both culture and science as well as serving as protector of Western civilization from both external(ottoman attacks) and internal threats (French revolutionaries).
Without a doubt, 1917 coups were the biggest tragedy not just for Russia, but for the whole civilized world. But it is very important to understand that seeds of bolshevism were not sown by Russians - this political disease was imported into Russia by foreign bankers and governments.
The question shouldn't be about "stopping" Russia, but to rather come to terms with the fact that Pax-Americana was neither perfect nor is permanent and some things that were established in past century are very far from being permanent.
At the end of the day, Russia is simply mitigating mistakes made by communist dictators - ironically something cold war globalist warhawks in Washington seem to intend to preserve.

Which planet is this from?

[Cyclops]

Is all this just a fuss so China can back down about Taiwan without losing internal face? They get to intervene with Putin and tell their own people "we pivoted to prevent WWIII, so Taiwan in a decade maybe. I mean its not easy now we're the monopole superpower keeping these fading nuclear regimes from toasting the planet. You're welcome".

Which planet is this from?

I think its an AH based on Red Alert where Russia wins.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Red Alert? You are ollllllld. ^^

On a more serious note:

Imperial Russia was called hothouse of capitalism at that time, as industry was built up quick with french "revanche" money. So imperial Russia had a huge class of poor, landless farmhands and few industrial workers with very low wages.

So Bolshism was "imported by bankers" is mumpitz. Communist ideas fell on fertile soil there because of urgent social problems.

[Heathen Hammer]

Russian peasants actually had far more better conditions under "evil czar" then under Bolshevik dictatorship. So "communist ideals falling on fertile soil" is primarily just propaganda made by communists themselves, who had to use foreign funding to initiate civil war in Russia and backstab Russian army, that was fighting on frontlines of WW1.
Fact of the matter is that Bolshevik coup was not organic and was sponsored by American banks and German government, as excellent study that I presented above proves.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Reality vs fantasy tsarist Russia:

Grievences of the peasantry and industrial workers

Over three-quarters of the Russian population were unhappy with their position in the Empire.
Peasants and workers alike suffered horrendous living and working conditions and hence posed a threat to the Tsarist regime. Discontent increased in the years before 1905 in the form of riots, illegal strikes and protests.

Discontent among the peasantry

Russia had no form of income tax. The Tsar taxed the produce of the peasant farmers to raise money to maintain his regime. The burden of taxation was so great that periodic riots broke out.

The peasants of Russia had been freed from serfdom in 1861 by Alexander II. However, in order to give the peasants land, the government had to pay the landowners for it.
As a result, the peasants had to pay this ‘loan’ back to the state in the form of Redemption Payments. This increased the hardship of peasants. 1903-1904 became known as the Years of the Red Cockerel when peasants seized a great deal of land in the countryside.
Famine was a common occurrence at the turn of the century. There was widespread famine in 1901. Even though they did not have enough to feed themselves, peasants were expected to produce surplus grain for export.
Land hunger was a major issue in the countryside. Although some wealthier peasants (Kulaks) did own their land, this was often at the expense of the poorer peasants.
The majority of poorer peasants were landless. They had no way of improving their situation.
The amount of land a single peasant had was declining through the practice of dividing land among successive generations of a family.

Discontent among the workers


Protests and strikes were on the increase in the early 1900s. By 1905 they were severe and widespread.

With industrialisation, under the guidance of Tsarist advisers Vyshnegradsky and Witte, came increased urbanisation. The population of Russia’s towns and cities multiplied by four.
Working conditions were terrible and trade unionism was banned. There was little to protect the pay or safety of workers. Laws protecting workers brought in under Alexander III and Nicholas II did little to improve the situation as the working day remained at 11.5 hours.
Living conditions were horrendous as developers struggled to deal with the demand for accommodation. Many lived in communal houses similar to army quarters, where kitchens, toilets and washrooms were shared. Others were forced to sleep in the factories where they worked, with little in terms of bedding.
There was limited sanitation and running water in the cities and the mortality rate was high.
There was an economic downturn in the early 1900s, leading to a lack of jobs and regular income. This was disastrous for those migrating to the cities looking for work.

Grievences of the peasantry and industrial workers - Imperial Russia - Government and people - National 5 History Revision - BBC Bitesize

[Heathen Hammer]

Grievences of the peasantry and industrial workers - Imperial Russia - Government and people - National 5 History Revision - BBC Bitesize

That's a pretty impressive collection of Soviet propaganda talking points, presented with no source. However it merely represents fantasy, while reality clearly states the opposite.
In reality, as per the excellent study I posted above, Bolshevik movement wasn't organic and was sponsored by German government and American banks:
https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/...volution-5.pdf

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

The poor living conditions of the majority of the tsarist population are common known facts.

But post your conspiracy theories of globalist elite.

[Heathen Hammer]

I presented a heavily sourced study on how Bolshevik coup was funded by foreign powers. You presented a pro-Soviet revisionist article from BBC which uses "just trust me bro" as its only source.
Note that I wasn't claiming that Russian Empire was a paradise to live, but rather the fact that Bolshevik ideas weren't popular (as per their electoral loss in Provisional Government's elections) and the only reason they won RCW was due to extensive foreign support.

[Ludicus]

From the news, Senators on precipice of Russia sanctions deal

“I think Putin and Putin's Russia have already committed sufficient aggression against Ukraine to justify some sanctions, said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.). Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), McConnell's No. 2 indicated that they needed to move quickly

"The U.S. already has substantial penalties and limits imposed on the Russian financial sector, making an American financial crisis driven by the conflict unlikely”.
“it’s really Europe that, I think, faces quite significant economic impacts"

"Several European officials have complained that the EU has been sidelined during discussions on Ukraine between the U.S. and Russian officials; Ukraine has also complained that it has also been left out of talks in which it is the central focus and concern" Europe sidelined CNBC

As Russia and US Debate Ukraine, Ukraine Would Like a Say NYTimes

While the United States and NATO speak with Russia this week, the Ukrainian government has been sidelined.

No comments.

[Ludicus]

With the entrance of Trump on the scene, in Putin's hand, Nato was threatened with extinction and lack of funds. It was saved by Ukraine.Putin is dangerous, but making Ukraine a casus belli is even more dangerous.
It is not in the interest of the military-industrial complex (yes, it exists) to stand still or have their toys rusted out...even the anti-belicist Biden cannot convince an overly powerful lobby.Biden has been convinced that an external enemy will unite the divided Americans. ...The West doesn't come to its senses.

Of course I can be wrong, but nothing in the last few days has changed my mind. From the news, Ukraine Accuses U.S. of Hurting Its Economy by Sowing Panic Bloomberg

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Friday that Russia’s posture on Ukraine’s border hasn’t escalated since last spring, and warnings of an imminent invasion by Moscow are damaging Ukraine’s economy.

Zelenskiy said satellite images alone were insufficient to assess the extent of the military buildup and the situation hasn’t escalated. “I am the president of Ukraine, I am here and I know more details and I have deeper knowledge than any other president.”

And as it was easy to predict, the bad news, China joins Russia in opposing NATO expansion: Live news

In a joint statement issued on Friday after the Russian president met Xi in Beijing,

Russia-China joint statement on ‘no-limits’ partnership

Here are some of the key points from the statement, which was issued following Xi and Putin’s meeting.

• Russia voiced support for China’s stance that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China, and opposition to any form of independence for the island.
• Both expressed opposition to the AUKUS alliance between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, which they said increased the danger of an arms race.
• China joined Russia in calling for an end to NATO enlargement and supported its demand for security guarantees from the West, notably regarding Ukraine.
• Both expressed concern about the US’s plans to develop missile defence and deploy it in various parts of the world.
• They also criticised attempts by “certain states” to establish global hegemony and impose their own standards of democracy, a thinly veiled barb aimed directly at Washington.
• Both said they planned to strengthen their cooperation on artificial intelligence and information security.

[EmperorBatman999]

As Russia and US Debate Ukraine, Ukraine Would Like a Say NYTimes

No comments.

A bloody dismal repeat of the Munich Conference.

[Heathen Hammer]

Ukraine is only upset about not being included in discussions, because they already figured out that Washington is using them as bargaining chip to get Russia to side with it on something entirely unrelated.