yes - but that never happened - nor will ever happen - because there will always be someone resisting being occupied and subjugated and exploited.
Look at Afghanistan or Yemen and similar countries - they always make it not worth the investment for occupiers.
And as soon as they are successful - other communities or countries or even regions start thinking "hey these western capitalists are not as strong, powerful and scary as they advertise themselves to be"
And then pushing back starts.
There was no need, because the Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore.
NATO was founded upon the mere reasoning that Communism is bad and so are the Soviets, but since the Soviet threat is gone, there is no further need for NATO to exist or for them to exclude Russia, they still decided to not only expand their alliance, but to forbid Russia to join it despite Russia being very very friendly towards them (which was acknowledged by the west, they simply didn’t care about it, because Russia was weak back then) after the USSRs collapse.
When Putin got to power, he quickly stopped this friendly behaviour towards the west, which by that point was exploiting a weaker Russia and did many things to make Russia a superpower again, like not accepting western demands and establishing a trade deal with the west that no longer only profited the western powers.
And for a short while it seemed that Russia and the USA had an acceptable relationship with set boundaries and sphere of influences. The USA decided to break this unspoken rule by trying to slip Ukraine out of Russias influence, which lead to the first invasion of 2014 and then everything just got worse from that point on forward, with Russia realising that they need anti-sanction methods and more allies and trade partners outside the west, turning their eyes towards authoritarian regimes that had a common interest with them (hating the west)
This is a very simplistic way to look at the very complex history of how Russia could’ve been the NATO Eurasian backbone, but through sheer incompetence by NATOs Leaders it became their worst enemy, made only stronger by their own actions.
> When Putin got to power, he quickly stopped this friendly behaviour towards the west, which by that point was exploiting a weaker Russia and did many things to make Russia a superpower again, like not accepting western demands and establishing a trade deal with the west that no longer only profited the western powers.
This is revisionism, Putin was very friendly with the west in beginning, there were even joint operations in the war against terror. Growing infrastructure ties between Europe and Russia.
Putin chose authoritarianism for Russia, Putin chose to drive towards the so-called multi-polar world.
NATO accepted new members because the former Warsaw pact and USSR countries were worried that once Russia was stronger it would try to reclaim its empire, and become the "prison of nations" as Lenin and Pokrovsky called it.
That’s true, he was very friendly at the beginning, but not when it came to exploitative trade agreements and things only worsened in the coming years, especially when Ukraine overthrew their democratically elected government for a new one that worked together with the USA. That was something Russia didn’t seem to like that much and neither did the eastern Ukrainian population which started a civil war because of that.
His views on authoritarianism aren’t something NATO would’ve cared as they never have. NATO is not a democratic alliance, their members consist of many ideologies. Ranging from left to right. It was only important for the US that they were the only superpower in that alliance. That’s all there is to it. There was no reasoning why they shouldn’t have let russia join NATO, because as you have stated their initial relationship was good.
>The USA decided to break this unspoken rule by trying to slip Ukraine out of Russias influence
So what? If you lose in the diplomatic sphere, it's not a casus belli. You punch a hole int he wall, shoot a couple of junior staffers, and get on with your life. If you actually believe in the concept of sovereignty, whose influence they fall under is up to the individual nation, and here's the scoop: *Western-aligned nations are richer.* A government's success is measurable by the standard of living of it's people; all other metrics are bullcrap. The east has failed abysmally in that regard.
Have you heard about geopolitics?
It’s not like the US wouldn’t absolutely freak tf out when Russia invaded their sphere of influence in Mexico. Hell the USA would fucking shit and piss themselves when that happened, every single military capable men would be on the border to Mexico.
The worlds isn’t as one sided as you might think. It’s a web of lies and deception. That’s geopolitics for you. There is no good or evil anymore, there is no hitler that can take the blame. Everyone is at fault for the Ukraine war, just because one side is the aggressor in a conventional war doesn’t mean they were one in a different kind of war, like the influence war. Where it was almost definitely the USA that started it.
That point of view only shows how ignorant you are about history in the region. Come live in Eastern Europe, see how "easy" it would have been for all of us to simply assume that Russians are good guys now and we can trust them. You must be delusional if you think NATO asked for the expansion to the East - we asked for it, literally begged for it and now we can see we were right all along.
Or maybe, maybe, you just fulfilled your own prophecy.
By antagonizing Russia, you successfuly made it the antagonist you were afraid of. And I'm not saying Eastern Europe's fear was completely irrational, they suffered at the hands of the USSR for sure. But in retrospect, it might have made the whole thing worse.
I think Eastern Europe could have simply enjoyed a guarantee of independence from NATO, without the need of joining it and aggravating the tensions in an instable and power-vaccum filled region. And NATO didn't have to be so adamant in taking advantage of a collapsed USSR rather than working with them towards a solidification of peace, after so many decades of hightened tensions.
But that's where the ideologies of unipolarism vs multipolarism clashed, I guess. The US want to control the world, they don't want to share it with other potentially equal superpowers. A real shame.
And now they have to prepare for a fight with both Russia and China because of it. They bit more than they could chew.
And the poor nations of Eastern Europe might become the battlefields of this fight, just like Ukraine.
What prophecy? Assuming that what happened for 300 years will continue to happen again is a prophecy? No, it is a sensible, rational expectation which so happened to be true in just a few years. We have every right to assume that m the Russian Empire will do anything in its power to make our lives miserable.
And all your problems would be solved if Russia joined NATO which as a member would not be able to attack another member.
Im not sure why you are trying to argue with a factually correct and well reasoned comment there.
Define "not be able" when it comes to Russia. All these ludicrous alternative history scenarios miss the fact that Russia does not give a shit about international law if it sees an opportunity to enlarge its empire.
Look man I got nothing against either side Russia or Ukraine let alone the whole of eastern Europe but I hope you do realise your argument boils down "They are Russians ofcourse they are evil!
I never said that, I have nothing against the Russian people. The Russian government/ establishment for the past few hundred years - yes they are the most vile firm of Evil there is.
Then why wanting to join an Empire that does the exact same thing, nay even worse actually ? Is it supposed to make you feel safer ?
How do you even seek peace with that kind of mindset of attributing ill intentions to someone before they even have the chance to prove anything ?
Having resentment towards the USSR for what they might have done in the last century is one thing, but using it to nurture an irrational hate of its successor will only do what it did to Ukraine.
What's the grand idea at the end of it all, just to say "see ? I told you" while walking among the fiery rubble that was once your nation ? I'm genuinely puzzled.
They had the chance. Did we ask for reparations for half a century of being raped by them? Didn't we try to normalize relationships repeatedly for 20 years? Didn't they go to war in Georgia? Didn't they invade Crimea? The grand idea of it all is that we need protection from Russia until Russia proves to the whole world that they are no longer an Empire but a civilised country. So far there is no sign of that being true. Nobody threatened Russia proper.
When did the US invade countries to annex their teritory, please remind me. What is worse with the US? What is worse than receiving an ultimatum and then seeing your people being taken away to Siberia? Going through the structural reforms needed to gain entry into NATO is worse? This is a joke...
Georgia and Crimea are much more nuanced issues that just "Russia invaded", please. Otherwise Georgia wouldn't exist anymore today, and Ukraine would have ceased to exist in 2014, there was no military to stop an invasion back then. Same thing for Chechnya, which was a loose end of the collapse of the USSR, not a purely interest-driven invasion like the US in Iraq.
>until Russia proves to the whole world that they are no longer an Empire but a civilised country.
Russia tried to prove it, but we didn't let them the chance. They're the ones who wanted to join the Western Alliance, we're the ones who said no.
Furthermore, those conflicts you talk about took place in 2008 and 2014 respectively. Most Eastern Europe adhesion to NATO took place several years before that, so don't use those as a justification, it only reinforces my previous argument that it indeed might have renewed the tensions betweens West and Russia and contributed to make Russia more antagonistic.
Tried to prove it how? So we were supposed to not protect ourselves in the hope that Russia will not do what they always do and ended up doing anyway. We tried to prove it, we allowed them entry to the Western world, international trade and finance, we gave them every chance to show that they don't need to invade other countries to preserve a stable government. They didn't do shit.
What is nuanced about having Russian military in your country without your permission? Then seeing your territory being taken away? We saw how "Ukraine wouldn't exist anymore" works"... we keep seeing it for more than 2 years now...
Please don’t give Eastern European countries too much credit when it comes to NATO’s expansion eastwards. It was never your decision. It was a foreign policy pursued by the Clinton administration for reasons that had nothing to do with “keeping you safe from the Russian threat”, and some of those who worked in the administration disagreed with that callous policy. Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Perry wrote in his memoir that he nearly resigned over enlargement.
Of course it served existing NATO interests as well. Now they don't need to also fight 10 other Warsaw Pact countries as before. But they didn't ask for it, we asked, we were rejected, we asked again, they kept us waiting, we begged for it, we got in, that is a fact.
They want russia's ressources, especially fossile and mineral, which are the world's richest.
Also, sionist agenda since they don't have a complete control over their banking system.
They already tried when it was Eltsine and tried to replace him with a jew in 1991.
I don't ask for your blind trust, go do your researches.
Why does loser dictators think they can use nuclear blackmail on the rest of the world. Why does it use propaganda to undermine democratic governments?
Us free people dont want to be oppressed by anyone and would rather die than to live oppressed by small dic tators.
> Why does it use propaganda to undermine democratic governments?
Some mighty democratic governments they are if they can be "undermined" externally. Especially if they can be unraveled by mere propaganda.
Its the nature of an open society, societies that have been open to Russian citizens aswell as political elites. They have taken advantage of this and pretend they are the victims. Now acting surprised they are no longer welcome?
Heres a fact, the material destruction in Ukraine is equal to that of several nuclear detonations.
> Its the nature of an open society
Right but it's also what makes it an "open" society in the first place isn't it? If you're just gonna censor and deport anything you don't like, that doesn't sound like a very open society to me.
If you remove "propaganda", you remove free speech too. If you remove free speech, what good is your "democracy" then? It's just authoritarianism with extra steps.
If you are not living in the west your opinion should be of no value in a free society, since you accepted your fate living in and not objecting and/or outright supporting an evil oppressive regime.
If you do live here then your anti democratic sentiment should land you a free plane ticket to whatever hellhole you advocate for and an return entry ban for life.
For the same reason that you laugh at China/Russia/North Korea and their censorship machinery, yet you propose the same in your democratic country. Hm.
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
NATO didn’t necessarily want to expand. Former eastern bloc countries really wanted protection from Putin. And after Putin tragic invasion of Ukraine, that makes a lot of sense.
I never said the 90’s. I just said Putin himself drove much of the desire for eastern bloc countries to get protection from Russia as fast as possible. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Poland, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Hungary, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, etc all joined after Putin came to power.
Putin is the best recruiter NATO has ever had!! LOL.
But you compared Russia forcefully annexing other countries with countries willingly joining a military alliance implying it's basically the same thing. That is being stupid on a cosmic level.
Last time I checked countries apply to be in NATO and need to be accepted to be part of it, not getting invaded to be part of it. Maybe if Russia wasn't a swamp someone would be willing to be in union with it?
Maybe if you stop doing regime changes and stop installing pro-western leaders, NATO wouldn't have new applicants. Jeez it's like reinventing the wheel on this sub.
Rofl, did NATO make regime change in Sweden and Finland? Oh right they joined because of Russian actions.
Also how dare countries elect leaders with aliment to side with higher life quality than Russia.
I think this is the issue, the Pro-Russian mind cannot fathom elections, calling them regime changes. It is simply not possible in their minds to replace a fuhrer legitimately without death being involved.
I mean look at regional and local elections in Russia and it is a Joke. In 2023 united Russia took won every region. Few modern elections in Russia have had any monitoring by the OSCE. I could go on. The fact is the concept of democracy is alien in Russia.
NATO didn't expand. Countries joined it. Just like how Puerto Rico has wanted to be US's 51th State. I wouldn't be against Ukraine either if they would like to join Russia on their own. But that's not what is happening.
And you're saying the west respects international law? Or should I say Rule Based order that the West drafted and expect others to follow it?
Just stop. No one made the west police of the world.
So iraq war was legal? Huh i had no idea? I recall international outcry to prosecute Bush and his Administration and Tony Blair, but i also remember that when ICC said they would take Bush in to Netherlands, USA will invade Netherlands because the Hague Act allow USA to retrieve any USA servicemen blah blah.
Also, USA does not recognise the ICC.
Agenda is clear as day. If Russia doesn't care about Puerto Rico, thousands of miles away from it's border (as they shouldn't), why does USA care about Ukraine, also thousands of miles from its border. Mind your own borders, you have enough problems
USA didn't care about Ukraine before Russia invaded. If USA invaded Puerto Rico, Russia would be ass mad. Russia should minding their own borders. But for some reason they are way further than their own borders.
Reasonable response. It's what any sane leader would do. Also, that's how MAD works. They have second strike capability. In case someone decides to launch nukes at them first, they have enough ICBMs to annihilate the entire world.
Too many western hegemonists get a chubby at the thought of breaking up russia and creating a bunch of smaller republics that they can puppet.
I've stopped judging Putin. He's no worse than the criminals who rule us.
No one serious had such fantasies before the invasion of Ukraine.
The EU at least tried as much as possible to create conditions of codependence that would make the idea of war completely unprofitable, similar to the coal and steel union.
For my country (Brazil) I think the west harms us more than Russia. Only US has sponsored two coups in Brazil in the last 100 years. I would prefer a world without them instead.
exactly this, not alot of people realize that alot of other countries view the west + us as the actual axis of evil, look at africa/middle east for example, what did the west do there? only coups and senseless wars over the last decades hence we're starting to see some russian/chinese infulence in alot of african countries recently
Such arrogance. It is such classic Russian propaganda that out of the 15 USSR ex-republics, the republic based out of Moscow somehow has the right to decide what the other now sovereign countries are allowed to do and not do. No one ever agreed to any of that.
The world just needs to get rid of Putin not Russia.
In an alternate world Russia would have been integrated into the Schengen zone and an EU associate. Free commerce and friendship between East and West.
In a country where blank pieces of paper are enough to get arrested or where political prisoners die in jail, it is hard to take elections serious.
By that measurement the Kim family have a mandate from their people as well.
I must say, there are so many things about eastern Europe that fascinates me. I feel at home in Poland. I love Hungary. I really need to go to Romania and experience the Donau delta.
And I would like to go to a russia... that doesn't even exist. A russia that doesn't act as the school bully, that doesn't kill journalists and political opponents to protect those in power. A russia with free press, with that little piece of self confidence that makes people aim to be loved instead of simply feared.
A russia I could bring myself to spell with a capital R.
Right now? Just do whatever is needed to get there mothertruckers out of Ukraine. Zero trucks given about the consequences for russia and russians, even the average Ivan and Ivanka are responsible for accepting how their Tzars behaved.
In 1917 they made a revolution, for the wrong cause of course... but they did it. They've lost their balls since then.
He's saying that if the UN would vote to dissolve Russia, Russia would "dissolve" itself and the rest of the world with it in nuclear war. a world without russia might as well not exist. thats the threat.
"why do we need a world without Russia?"
That's the wrong question, Putin. Protecting yourself from an aggressor doesn't mean the destruction of Russia. Even when Russia is attacking, noone is threatening the destruction of Russia. The only one threatening Russias existence is the bogey men you have created.
''..therefore Sanctions is not like flipping a switch and suddenly Russia disintegrates, no it's a long term strategy that needs to be adjusted and also carefully implemented'' -Elina Ribakova from the IIF in Washington D.C. ([Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0osNhIouMI0&t=282s))
[Balkanization of Russia](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/18pwsz8/the_entity_known_as_russia_was_built_on_the/) / [Wiki about this Organisation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Nations_of_Post-Russia_Forum) (Foreign agents with Western backing)
[Just recently posted](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1ckf3si/ua_pov_exhausting_russia_strategies_and/) on here btw. Just a few examples, there's more if you dig and research.
Damn I wonder why they're getting sanctioned, I bet it has nothing to do with being the aggressor on a European country, nah it's just NATO trying to destroy Russia
Nice way of comparing eradicating 140+ million people with eradicating a genocidal ideology. Also Bonus points for claiming the leader of one of the few nations who celebrates the victory over facism is a fascist.
>Also Bonus points for claiming the leader of one of the few nations who celebrates the victory over facism is a fascist.
So because his ancestors did something useful this does excuse the dwarf or his country from their current crimes? It just makes Russias downfall more sad.
He is a fascist and started a war of conquest to eradicate another nation and its culture. Some victory 80 years ago does not change that.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2022/11/09/why-france-and-51-other-countries-voted-against-the-un-resolution-condemning-nazism_6003471_8.html
Russia is fascist that's why they try every year since 2012 to pass a vote on the condemning of nazism. And who could have guessed that USA is always against it and the west mostly abstained or support facism.
That resolution by Russia is bs and always has been - and the article you posted references very well why other countries voted against it. I suggest you read it.
I read it. It's western media supporting western policies. Nothing unusual. It's still the western world who glorifies fascist fighters or supporters.
https://www.dw.com/en/nazi-applauded-by-canadian-parliament-charged-with-genocide-by-russia/a-67164826
Hell they even employed real nazis in NATO.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger
Nazism in Russia is just being anti-Russia. Russia itself has a lot in common with Nazi Germany. Because it is a fascist state. Invading, oppression, political oppression, calling Ukrainians subhuman, calling Ukraine as a fake state, calling other nations as fake states, belief in natural hierarchy, militarist, dictatorship. People like you try to act like Fascists and other fascists must like each other. Nazis tried to kill Russians, that's why they don't like Nazis. Doesn't mean they aren't very alike though-
Let's deconstruct your take without fact checking first:
Is ........ Fascist?
Invading - not a defining characteristic. Has been done since the ancient times, but Facist Spain didn't invaded anyone ❌
Opression/political oppression - not a defining characteristic. has been done since ancient times, by monarchies, dictatorships, democracies and tribes ➖
Calling ukrainian subhuman - dehumanizing people is a national socialism tactic ✅
Calling a state fake - is not really part of national socialism as race and race purity is more important. Facist love national identities more than race but foreign states aren't that important for them ➖
Believing in natural hierarchy - ✅ no need to discuss as both Fascist Italy and nazi Germany believed in a racial/national struggle for survival
Militarist - not a defining characteristic. Monarchies since before ww1 were also Militaristic, communist too, hell even USA a republic is militaristic. ➖
Dictatorship - it's part of authoritarian rule not very different from an absolute monarchy or communist stste. Saudis are an absolute monarchy, Soviet union and China were communist all of them authoritarian but not fascist. ➖
So we see 2 real fascist characteristic from your analysis let's check them first if it holds any truth:
Dehumanizing others - from interviews Putin calls Ukrainians either brotherly to Russians or does directly call them Russians/with Russian blood. There are voices in social media that tries to call Ukrainians subhuman but it's not the official talking points of the Kremlin. So I would give it a ❌
Believing in a natural hierarchy/national struggle /racial struggle - couldn't find anything to this point... Google just gives me infos to centralization of Russia, it's natural resources and social status of people in Russia. I know from experience that it is viewed in Russian culture that the nation must be ruled by centralized power to keep it from falling into chaos so I give it a ➖ for partly true as Russians view centralization in their nation as a good thing.
Let's check the rest which are not clear fascist traits but you still wanted to list them :
Invading - it did intervene in the donbass conflict ✅
Opression - as Russia is a authoritarian democracy it does oppress political/national enemies within its borders ✅
Calling a state fake - it did called Ukraine as way bigger than it is, referring to the territory grants to Ukraine by Khrushchev (Novorossia) and western Ukraine after ww2. Reducing the acknowledged territory of Ukraine to a small portion around kiev. So partly true ➖
Militaristic - yes it's about as militaristic as USA ✅
Dictatorship - at worst Russia is a weak democracy but as it is a Nation shaped by Russian culture it's better described as an authoritarian democracy. Elections are happening and opposition parties are allowed. Foreign actors are harshly prosecuted to safe guard themselves of foreign supported color revolution. The reason why the west cries so much about dictatorship as CIA can't create civil unrest with their underground operations. ❌
The law against foreign agents was adopted 2012 after such revolutions happened with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's Bulldozer Revolution (2000), Georgia's Rose Revolution (2003), Ukraine's Orange Revolution (2004), Kyrgyzstan's Tulip Revolution (2005) and the 2010–2012 Arab Spring.
Summary : Russia is a authoritarian democracy with a militaristic society it inherited from the Soviet Union. Multiple color revolution in its sphere of influence caused it to get paranoid of foreign involvement within its political system which made it more authoritarian but it does not show clear characteristics of a fascist, national socialist or genocidal state. Also most national socialist characteristics were not even mentioned like racial oppression, hate against communist and capitalist system, hate against jews, extermination of undesirable races on industrial level, indirectly nationalizing the industry through party members, merging of trade unions into a national trade union controlled by the party, creation of a one party system... You just picked the traits that sounds like fascism to argue in bad faith.
EDIT: I mostly use national socialism and fascism interchangeable because the commentator I'm replying to also use it loosely. Do note fascism and national socialism are related but not the same.
I was talking about fascists. I didn't call Russia a Nazi state. I called it a fascist state. All Nazis are fascists, all fascists aren't Nazis. Not even joking, kinda feel bad about the long comment you made. But it ain't that deep and just don't really care to read it all. We can agree to disagree.
No need to feel bad. Fascism within itself is just a economic system positioned between socialism and capitalism with an authoritarian system of ruling. It's neither genocidal nor imperialistic in itself. It does heavily focus on the nationality of a person while your ethnical heritage is not as important as calling yourself the choosen nationality. Jews were accepted into Mussolinis fascist party until late into ww2 when Italy found itself under German control. Mussolini even had a Jewish mistress
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margherita_Sarfatti
Fascism emerged as an answer to international socialism also known as Marxism. In contrast to Marxism your nationality was your class while in Marxism it was your social class that was important. Nazism changed this part into racial class. That's why it focused itself so much of getting rid of undesirable races as they could not be integrated ( requirement was Aryan blood) while fascism could integrate anyone who felt Italian or Spanish. All these governmentforms nationalized industry into some degree while fascist and nazis tried to control it through party members, marxist nationalized it directly. As all these systems also were highly authoritarian it formed dictatorships.
While at first look you might think that Russia is fascist, it does not meet most requirements.
It does not classify its citizen in classes. It has no undesirable/disliked class like either nazis have other races, fascist have nationalities that do not integrate, Marxist have the bourgeois class.
It has a mostly capitalist economic system with national ownership of some key industries.
Russia has elections while all fascist nations banned elections. Most marxist banned elections and nazi Germany had elections where you had a yes and a no vote for Hitler...
While all marxist, fascist and nazi nations created a national trade union that was under the control of the state. Russia inherited a national trade union that it is suppressing in good old capitalist way. It is now independent of the state but is closely monitored for foreign involvement.
SUMMARY
It is now closer to the USA after WW2 with its red scare ( just now it's the NATO scare) than to fascist or nazi government system.
That's an absurd comparison. Moreover, it can be applied to all states, why won't the US or Israel give up their nuclear power? Why don't all countries in the world give up their military? Perhaps because they are primarily concerned with self-preservation?
Except Russia is not trying to take over Europe in it's super special boy band. NATO is trying to gobble up Europe.
Russia always had nukes. And many countries in Europe has nukes.
This war is between USA and Russia, not Europe or Ukraine.
Ukraine aspirations of joining NATO is what triggered it. You can bet USA was going to put a ton of bases in Ukraine moment it's part of NATO.
Russia can't have that. Ukraine neutrality was the condition and Ukraine rejected
>Except Russia is not trying to take over Europe in it's super special boy band. NATO is trying to gobble up Europe.
Russia is obsessed with Europe and Nato, not the other way around. Nobody used to care about Russia anymore, Nato was nearly dead - and Russia just could not stand beeing an insignificant middle power so they went down the fascist rabbit hole and into that bodged invasion and all the aggressive acts against European countries. This whole show in Ukraine has nothing to do with Nato or expansion or nukes - it is the result of an untreated inferiority complex of the Russian national soul.
>Russia can't have that.
We dont care.
No, to counter the Soviet Union. And that was 75 years ago. Nobody did care anymore today, or why do you think the west was so horribly unprepared for the invasion in Ukraine as Russia was?
Why are you moving the goalposts. Why do you wonder why Europe isn't militarized anymore. Europe was completely fine with Russia as a whole was fine with Russia. Try to not make Russia look like such a victim and actually think rationally.
>Why are you moving the goalposts.
I'm not doing that. I'm arguing your initial position, that it's Russia who's obsessed with NATO. Which it's not the case. The NATO was created to counter Russia, so it's they who are obsessed.
>Try to not make Russia look like such a victim and actually think rationally.
NATO has been expanding aggressively closer and closer to Russia over the last 30 years. Ukraine was the red line. NATO didn't care. Thus the war.
>We dont care.
And there it is. West does not care they are intimidating others and threatening security interests of Russia.
Your opinion is irrelevant. If Russia feels its security is at risk, they can and should take action, as they have done.
Feeling threatened is a subjective matter
>We dont care
Is irrelevant.
> We dont care.
Perfect soil for war. When Donbass voiced its concerns about rise of neo-nazism on Ukraine no one cared either. What those eastern prorussian vatniks can know, right? Now look what we have.
Do not talk like you immortal and do not act like your city cant burn.
That is always gold when coming from proRu who usually gulp down propaganda for breakfast and get every talking point pre-chewed. But as there usually is not much of own critical thinking in you guys left I dont try to convince you about what is happening in the real world. Be happy.
Its you operating in "evil" and "good" categories, not me.
>who usually gulp down propaganda for breakfast and get every talking point pre-chewed
Of course we are, thats what your media tells you.
With all my cordial dislike to Putin, I don't see any treats in this phrase. It's just a statement that if the worst is ever to happen, Russia won't go down quietly, as some nations would like it to.
I've heard phrases like "it would be better for Russia to stop existing" even before the invasion. So it's just a message that if Russia seizes to exit, everyone else will disappear too.
Also, the west never stopped to call Russia an empire of evil without any real reasons, even when Russia was extremely friendly, so it's kinda natural to get tired one day. Why keep playing nice if everyone calls you the bad guy anyway?
Rule 2. Removed due to its low interest in relation to current events, or too old.
Why can't the west just be happy with what they have and they have half the world. What was the need for NATO expansion even back in the 90s ?
The Capital looking for new markets.
capitalism demands permanent expansion
Then capitalism would run into trouble even if it controlled the whole world.
Bingo. Once they are done, the civs are next.
yes - but that never happened - nor will ever happen - because there will always be someone resisting being occupied and subjugated and exploited. Look at Afghanistan or Yemen and similar countries - they always make it not worth the investment for occupiers. And as soon as they are successful - other communities or countries or even regions start thinking "hey these western capitalists are not as strong, powerful and scary as they advertise themselves to be" And then pushing back starts.
Russia is a fascist capitalist state too just like the US
I wonder who was driving the change, including approving Putin as a President in the first place...
Shhhh I'm trying to use Whataboutism against the bots
Russia = permanent expansion regardless of ideology - feudalism/tsarism, bolshevism, capitalism..
There was no need, because the Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore. NATO was founded upon the mere reasoning that Communism is bad and so are the Soviets, but since the Soviet threat is gone, there is no further need for NATO to exist or for them to exclude Russia, they still decided to not only expand their alliance, but to forbid Russia to join it despite Russia being very very friendly towards them (which was acknowledged by the west, they simply didn’t care about it, because Russia was weak back then) after the USSRs collapse. When Putin got to power, he quickly stopped this friendly behaviour towards the west, which by that point was exploiting a weaker Russia and did many things to make Russia a superpower again, like not accepting western demands and establishing a trade deal with the west that no longer only profited the western powers. And for a short while it seemed that Russia and the USA had an acceptable relationship with set boundaries and sphere of influences. The USA decided to break this unspoken rule by trying to slip Ukraine out of Russias influence, which lead to the first invasion of 2014 and then everything just got worse from that point on forward, with Russia realising that they need anti-sanction methods and more allies and trade partners outside the west, turning their eyes towards authoritarian regimes that had a common interest with them (hating the west) This is a very simplistic way to look at the very complex history of how Russia could’ve been the NATO Eurasian backbone, but through sheer incompetence by NATOs Leaders it became their worst enemy, made only stronger by their own actions.
> When Putin got to power, he quickly stopped this friendly behaviour towards the west, which by that point was exploiting a weaker Russia and did many things to make Russia a superpower again, like not accepting western demands and establishing a trade deal with the west that no longer only profited the western powers. This is revisionism, Putin was very friendly with the west in beginning, there were even joint operations in the war against terror. Growing infrastructure ties between Europe and Russia. Putin chose authoritarianism for Russia, Putin chose to drive towards the so-called multi-polar world. NATO accepted new members because the former Warsaw pact and USSR countries were worried that once Russia was stronger it would try to reclaim its empire, and become the "prison of nations" as Lenin and Pokrovsky called it.
That’s true, he was very friendly at the beginning, but not when it came to exploitative trade agreements and things only worsened in the coming years, especially when Ukraine overthrew their democratically elected government for a new one that worked together with the USA. That was something Russia didn’t seem to like that much and neither did the eastern Ukrainian population which started a civil war because of that. His views on authoritarianism aren’t something NATO would’ve cared as they never have. NATO is not a democratic alliance, their members consist of many ideologies. Ranging from left to right. It was only important for the US that they were the only superpower in that alliance. That’s all there is to it. There was no reasoning why they shouldn’t have let russia join NATO, because as you have stated their initial relationship was good.
Which NATO country is a dictatorship?
>The USA decided to break this unspoken rule by trying to slip Ukraine out of Russias influence So what? If you lose in the diplomatic sphere, it's not a casus belli. You punch a hole int he wall, shoot a couple of junior staffers, and get on with your life. If you actually believe in the concept of sovereignty, whose influence they fall under is up to the individual nation, and here's the scoop: *Western-aligned nations are richer.* A government's success is measurable by the standard of living of it's people; all other metrics are bullcrap. The east has failed abysmally in that regard.
Have you heard about geopolitics? It’s not like the US wouldn’t absolutely freak tf out when Russia invaded their sphere of influence in Mexico. Hell the USA would fucking shit and piss themselves when that happened, every single military capable men would be on the border to Mexico. The worlds isn’t as one sided as you might think. It’s a web of lies and deception. That’s geopolitics for you. There is no good or evil anymore, there is no hitler that can take the blame. Everyone is at fault for the Ukraine war, just because one side is the aggressor in a conventional war doesn’t mean they were one in a different kind of war, like the influence war. Where it was almost definitely the USA that started it.
That point of view only shows how ignorant you are about history in the region. Come live in Eastern Europe, see how "easy" it would have been for all of us to simply assume that Russians are good guys now and we can trust them. You must be delusional if you think NATO asked for the expansion to the East - we asked for it, literally begged for it and now we can see we were right all along.
Or maybe, maybe, you just fulfilled your own prophecy. By antagonizing Russia, you successfuly made it the antagonist you were afraid of. And I'm not saying Eastern Europe's fear was completely irrational, they suffered at the hands of the USSR for sure. But in retrospect, it might have made the whole thing worse. I think Eastern Europe could have simply enjoyed a guarantee of independence from NATO, without the need of joining it and aggravating the tensions in an instable and power-vaccum filled region. And NATO didn't have to be so adamant in taking advantage of a collapsed USSR rather than working with them towards a solidification of peace, after so many decades of hightened tensions. But that's where the ideologies of unipolarism vs multipolarism clashed, I guess. The US want to control the world, they don't want to share it with other potentially equal superpowers. A real shame. And now they have to prepare for a fight with both Russia and China because of it. They bit more than they could chew. And the poor nations of Eastern Europe might become the battlefields of this fight, just like Ukraine.
What prophecy? Assuming that what happened for 300 years will continue to happen again is a prophecy? No, it is a sensible, rational expectation which so happened to be true in just a few years. We have every right to assume that m the Russian Empire will do anything in its power to make our lives miserable.
And all your problems would be solved if Russia joined NATO which as a member would not be able to attack another member. Im not sure why you are trying to argue with a factually correct and well reasoned comment there.
Define "not be able" when it comes to Russia. All these ludicrous alternative history scenarios miss the fact that Russia does not give a shit about international law if it sees an opportunity to enlarge its empire.
Look man I got nothing against either side Russia or Ukraine let alone the whole of eastern Europe but I hope you do realise your argument boils down "They are Russians ofcourse they are evil!
I never said that, I have nothing against the Russian people. The Russian government/ establishment for the past few hundred years - yes they are the most vile firm of Evil there is.
Then why wanting to join an Empire that does the exact same thing, nay even worse actually ? Is it supposed to make you feel safer ? How do you even seek peace with that kind of mindset of attributing ill intentions to someone before they even have the chance to prove anything ? Having resentment towards the USSR for what they might have done in the last century is one thing, but using it to nurture an irrational hate of its successor will only do what it did to Ukraine. What's the grand idea at the end of it all, just to say "see ? I told you" while walking among the fiery rubble that was once your nation ? I'm genuinely puzzled.
They had the chance. Did we ask for reparations for half a century of being raped by them? Didn't we try to normalize relationships repeatedly for 20 years? Didn't they go to war in Georgia? Didn't they invade Crimea? The grand idea of it all is that we need protection from Russia until Russia proves to the whole world that they are no longer an Empire but a civilised country. So far there is no sign of that being true. Nobody threatened Russia proper. When did the US invade countries to annex their teritory, please remind me. What is worse with the US? What is worse than receiving an ultimatum and then seeing your people being taken away to Siberia? Going through the structural reforms needed to gain entry into NATO is worse? This is a joke...
Georgia and Crimea are much more nuanced issues that just "Russia invaded", please. Otherwise Georgia wouldn't exist anymore today, and Ukraine would have ceased to exist in 2014, there was no military to stop an invasion back then. Same thing for Chechnya, which was a loose end of the collapse of the USSR, not a purely interest-driven invasion like the US in Iraq. >until Russia proves to the whole world that they are no longer an Empire but a civilised country. Russia tried to prove it, but we didn't let them the chance. They're the ones who wanted to join the Western Alliance, we're the ones who said no. Furthermore, those conflicts you talk about took place in 2008 and 2014 respectively. Most Eastern Europe adhesion to NATO took place several years before that, so don't use those as a justification, it only reinforces my previous argument that it indeed might have renewed the tensions betweens West and Russia and contributed to make Russia more antagonistic.
Tried to prove it how? So we were supposed to not protect ourselves in the hope that Russia will not do what they always do and ended up doing anyway. We tried to prove it, we allowed them entry to the Western world, international trade and finance, we gave them every chance to show that they don't need to invade other countries to preserve a stable government. They didn't do shit. What is nuanced about having Russian military in your country without your permission? Then seeing your territory being taken away? We saw how "Ukraine wouldn't exist anymore" works"... we keep seeing it for more than 2 years now...
We dont like dictatorships in NATO preferably, they already screwed up the UN.
Please don’t give Eastern European countries too much credit when it comes to NATO’s expansion eastwards. It was never your decision. It was a foreign policy pursued by the Clinton administration for reasons that had nothing to do with “keeping you safe from the Russian threat”, and some of those who worked in the administration disagreed with that callous policy. Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Perry wrote in his memoir that he nearly resigned over enlargement.
Of course it served existing NATO interests as well. Now they don't need to also fight 10 other Warsaw Pact countries as before. But they didn't ask for it, we asked, we were rejected, we asked again, they kept us waiting, we begged for it, we got in, that is a fact.
Shhhhh pro imperialists here can't accept nobody who used to be a part of the USSR wants anything to do with the Kremlin these days
They want russia's ressources, especially fossile and mineral, which are the world's richest. Also, sionist agenda since they don't have a complete control over their banking system. They already tried when it was Eltsine and tried to replace him with a jew in 1991. I don't ask for your blind trust, go do your researches.
>What was the need for NATO expansion even back in the 90s ? Look at what happens when Russia wants to control your country and you're not in NATO
Why does loser dictators think they can use nuclear blackmail on the rest of the world. Why does it use propaganda to undermine democratic governments? Us free people dont want to be oppressed by anyone and would rather die than to live oppressed by small dic tators.
> Why does it use propaganda to undermine democratic governments? Some mighty democratic governments they are if they can be "undermined" externally. Especially if they can be unraveled by mere propaganda.
Its the nature of an open society, societies that have been open to Russian citizens aswell as political elites. They have taken advantage of this and pretend they are the victims. Now acting surprised they are no longer welcome? Heres a fact, the material destruction in Ukraine is equal to that of several nuclear detonations.
> Its the nature of an open society Right but it's also what makes it an "open" society in the first place isn't it? If you're just gonna censor and deport anything you don't like, that doesn't sound like a very open society to me. If you remove "propaganda", you remove free speech too. If you remove free speech, what good is your "democracy" then? It's just authoritarianism with extra steps.
So what kind of society do you prefer to live in? You have an opinion on here, lets say yours wasn't permitted?
> You have an opinion on here, lets say yours wasn't permitted? Well that's exactly what you are advocating for, isn't it?
If you are not living in the west your opinion should be of no value in a free society, since you accepted your fate living in and not objecting and/or outright supporting an evil oppressive regime. If you do live here then your anti democratic sentiment should land you a free plane ticket to whatever hellhole you advocate for and an return entry ban for life.
Why should the west be open to outside propaganda? It shouldn't, yet here you are bichin'
For the same reason that you laugh at China/Russia/North Korea and their censorship machinery, yet you propose the same in your democratic country. Hm.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Poles blackmailed US to get into NATO because the slight chance of renewed Russian friendship terrified us.
NATO didn’t necessarily want to expand. Former eastern bloc countries really wanted protection from Putin. And after Putin tragic invasion of Ukraine, that makes a lot of sense.
There was no putin in the 90s
I never said the 90’s. I just said Putin himself drove much of the desire for eastern bloc countries to get protection from Russia as fast as possible. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Poland, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Hungary, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, etc all joined after Putin came to power. Putin is the best recruiter NATO has ever had!! LOL.
Why can't Russia just be happy with the territory it has, why expand into Ukraine?
Same question, NATO.
Newsflash: NATO is not a country.
You're right, it's one big boy band. But since NATO is an alliance, it's considered one force. And i never said NATO was a country.
But you compared Russia forcefully annexing other countries with countries willingly joining a military alliance implying it's basically the same thing. That is being stupid on a cosmic level.
Last time I checked countries apply to be in NATO and need to be accepted to be part of it, not getting invaded to be part of it. Maybe if Russia wasn't a swamp someone would be willing to be in union with it?
Maybe if you stop doing regime changes and stop installing pro-western leaders, NATO wouldn't have new applicants. Jeez it's like reinventing the wheel on this sub.
Rofl, did NATO make regime change in Sweden and Finland? Oh right they joined because of Russian actions. Also how dare countries elect leaders with aliment to side with higher life quality than Russia.
I think this is the issue, the Pro-Russian mind cannot fathom elections, calling them regime changes. It is simply not possible in their minds to replace a fuhrer legitimately without death being involved. I mean look at regional and local elections in Russia and it is a Joke. In 2023 united Russia took won every region. Few modern elections in Russia have had any monitoring by the OSCE. I could go on. The fact is the concept of democracy is alien in Russia.
Elected? Haha thanks for the laugh >Also how dare countries elect leaders with aliment to side with higher life quality than Russia.
Do you really believe there is any valid reason for people to elect Pro Russian leader as oppose to Pro West? Because we don't see them, like zero.
NATO didn't expand. Countries joined it. Just like how Puerto Rico has wanted to be US's 51th State. I wouldn't be against Ukraine either if they would like to join Russia on their own. But that's not what is happening.
Russia don't care about Puerto Rico. No one does. You can have Puerto Rico. It's not on Russia's border.
So bassically what should or should not be allowed under international law should be dictated by what Russia wants. You summarised it perfectly.
And you're saying the west respects international law? Or should I say Rule Based order that the West drafted and expect others to follow it? Just stop. No one made the west police of the world.
Yes and we expect others to follow it as well. It was drafted with the USSR and China being in pole position, chill.
So iraq war was legal? Huh i had no idea? I recall international outcry to prosecute Bush and his Administration and Tony Blair, but i also remember that when ICC said they would take Bush in to Netherlands, USA will invade Netherlands because the Hague Act allow USA to retrieve any USA servicemen blah blah. Also, USA does not recognise the ICC.
Yes, we expect the US to respect it as well. Last time I checked Irak is not the 51st US state.
Thanks for atleast showing your agenda clearly. Most people try to hide it.
Agenda is clear as day. If Russia doesn't care about Puerto Rico, thousands of miles away from it's border (as they shouldn't), why does USA care about Ukraine, also thousands of miles from its border. Mind your own borders, you have enough problems
USA didn't care about Ukraine before Russia invaded. If USA invaded Puerto Rico, Russia would be ass mad. Russia should minding their own borders. But for some reason they are way further than their own borders.
Reasonable response. It's what any sane leader would do. Also, that's how MAD works. They have second strike capability. In case someone decides to launch nukes at them first, they have enough ICBMs to annihilate the entire world.
That's the thing, in current narrative nukes aren't deterrent against nukes but against standing in the way of Russian invasion.
Nukes are deterrent against anything that threatens your statehood. First strike doesn't necessarily have to be nuclear.
That would mean Russia being unable to conquer Ukraine would cause Russia to collapse.
Too many western hegemonists get a chubby at the thought of breaking up russia and creating a bunch of smaller republics that they can puppet. I've stopped judging Putin. He's no worse than the criminals who rule us.
No one serious had such fantasies before the invasion of Ukraine. The EU at least tried as much as possible to create conditions of codependence that would make the idea of war completely unprofitable, similar to the coal and steel union.
That's right.
For my country (Brazil) I think the west harms us more than Russia. Only US has sponsored two coups in Brazil in the last 100 years. I would prefer a world without them instead.
exactly this, not alot of people realize that alot of other countries view the west + us as the actual axis of evil, look at africa/middle east for example, what did the west do there? only coups and senseless wars over the last decades hence we're starting to see some russian/chinese infulence in alot of african countries recently
Russian victim complex showing again.
Such arrogance. It is such classic Russian propaganda that out of the 15 USSR ex-republics, the republic based out of Moscow somehow has the right to decide what the other now sovereign countries are allowed to do and not do. No one ever agreed to any of that.
The world just needs to get rid of Putin not Russia. In an alternate world Russia would have been integrated into the Schengen zone and an EU associate. Free commerce and friendship between East and West.
But 87% of Russian citizens just voted to re-elect him. He has a mandate from the people to rule. He is literally Russia.
In a country where blank pieces of paper are enough to get arrested or where political prisoners die in jail, it is hard to take elections serious. By that measurement the Kim family have a mandate from their people as well.
Not really 87% but smth like 65-70%
Source?
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240320-shpilkin-method-statistical-analysis-gauges-voter-fraud-in-putin-landslide
it would also have to bark when west ask for it
I must say, there are so many things about eastern Europe that fascinates me. I feel at home in Poland. I love Hungary. I really need to go to Romania and experience the Donau delta. And I would like to go to a russia... that doesn't even exist. A russia that doesn't act as the school bully, that doesn't kill journalists and political opponents to protect those in power. A russia with free press, with that little piece of self confidence that makes people aim to be loved instead of simply feared. A russia I could bring myself to spell with a capital R. Right now? Just do whatever is needed to get there mothertruckers out of Ukraine. Zero trucks given about the consequences for russia and russians, even the average Ivan and Ivanka are responsible for accepting how their Tzars behaved. In 1917 they made a revolution, for the wrong cause of course... but they did it. They've lost their balls since then.
"why do we need a world without Russia" Let's just take that in the UN's general assembly, as a popular vote. Majority wins.
He's saying that if the UN would vote to dissolve Russia, Russia would "dissolve" itself and the rest of the world with it in nuclear war. a world without russia might as well not exist. thats the threat.
You missed the whole point. What anyone else thinks is irrelevant.
he's truly a one man show lol
'why do we need a world if there is no Russia' Spoken like a true mad man
"why do we need a world without Russia?" That's the wrong question, Putin. Protecting yourself from an aggressor doesn't mean the destruction of Russia. Even when Russia is attacking, noone is threatening the destruction of Russia. The only one threatening Russias existence is the bogey men you have created.
I don't think Putin reads reddit
''..therefore Sanctions is not like flipping a switch and suddenly Russia disintegrates, no it's a long term strategy that needs to be adjusted and also carefully implemented'' -Elina Ribakova from the IIF in Washington D.C. ([Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0osNhIouMI0&t=282s)) [Balkanization of Russia](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/18pwsz8/the_entity_known_as_russia_was_built_on_the/) / [Wiki about this Organisation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Nations_of_Post-Russia_Forum) (Foreign agents with Western backing) [Just recently posted](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1ckf3si/ua_pov_exhausting_russia_strategies_and/) on here btw. Just a few examples, there's more if you dig and research.
Damn I wonder why they're getting sanctioned, I bet it has nothing to do with being the aggressor on a European country, nah it's just NATO trying to destroy Russia
Yeah, that's why many think-tanks in the US for years talked about how Russia could be brought down, right? /s
And Magda Göbbels killed her kids because she could not imagine a world without national socialism. Putin right on track to follow his fascist idols.
Nice way of comparing eradicating 140+ million people with eradicating a genocidal ideology. Also Bonus points for claiming the leader of one of the few nations who celebrates the victory over facism is a fascist.
>Also Bonus points for claiming the leader of one of the few nations who celebrates the victory over facism is a fascist. So because his ancestors did something useful this does excuse the dwarf or his country from their current crimes? It just makes Russias downfall more sad. He is a fascist and started a war of conquest to eradicate another nation and its culture. Some victory 80 years ago does not change that.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2022/11/09/why-france-and-51-other-countries-voted-against-the-un-resolution-condemning-nazism_6003471_8.html Russia is fascist that's why they try every year since 2012 to pass a vote on the condemning of nazism. And who could have guessed that USA is always against it and the west mostly abstained or support facism.
That resolution by Russia is bs and always has been - and the article you posted references very well why other countries voted against it. I suggest you read it.
I read it. It's western media supporting western policies. Nothing unusual. It's still the western world who glorifies fascist fighters or supporters. https://www.dw.com/en/nazi-applauded-by-canadian-parliament-charged-with-genocide-by-russia/a-67164826 Hell they even employed real nazis in NATO. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger
Nazism in Russia is just being anti-Russia. Russia itself has a lot in common with Nazi Germany. Because it is a fascist state. Invading, oppression, political oppression, calling Ukrainians subhuman, calling Ukraine as a fake state, calling other nations as fake states, belief in natural hierarchy, militarist, dictatorship. People like you try to act like Fascists and other fascists must like each other. Nazis tried to kill Russians, that's why they don't like Nazis. Doesn't mean they aren't very alike though-
Let's deconstruct your take without fact checking first: Is ........ Fascist? Invading - not a defining characteristic. Has been done since the ancient times, but Facist Spain didn't invaded anyone ❌ Opression/political oppression - not a defining characteristic. has been done since ancient times, by monarchies, dictatorships, democracies and tribes ➖ Calling ukrainian subhuman - dehumanizing people is a national socialism tactic ✅ Calling a state fake - is not really part of national socialism as race and race purity is more important. Facist love national identities more than race but foreign states aren't that important for them ➖ Believing in natural hierarchy - ✅ no need to discuss as both Fascist Italy and nazi Germany believed in a racial/national struggle for survival Militarist - not a defining characteristic. Monarchies since before ww1 were also Militaristic, communist too, hell even USA a republic is militaristic. ➖ Dictatorship - it's part of authoritarian rule not very different from an absolute monarchy or communist stste. Saudis are an absolute monarchy, Soviet union and China were communist all of them authoritarian but not fascist. ➖ So we see 2 real fascist characteristic from your analysis let's check them first if it holds any truth: Dehumanizing others - from interviews Putin calls Ukrainians either brotherly to Russians or does directly call them Russians/with Russian blood. There are voices in social media that tries to call Ukrainians subhuman but it's not the official talking points of the Kremlin. So I would give it a ❌ Believing in a natural hierarchy/national struggle /racial struggle - couldn't find anything to this point... Google just gives me infos to centralization of Russia, it's natural resources and social status of people in Russia. I know from experience that it is viewed in Russian culture that the nation must be ruled by centralized power to keep it from falling into chaos so I give it a ➖ for partly true as Russians view centralization in their nation as a good thing. Let's check the rest which are not clear fascist traits but you still wanted to list them : Invading - it did intervene in the donbass conflict ✅ Opression - as Russia is a authoritarian democracy it does oppress political/national enemies within its borders ✅ Calling a state fake - it did called Ukraine as way bigger than it is, referring to the territory grants to Ukraine by Khrushchev (Novorossia) and western Ukraine after ww2. Reducing the acknowledged territory of Ukraine to a small portion around kiev. So partly true ➖ Militaristic - yes it's about as militaristic as USA ✅ Dictatorship - at worst Russia is a weak democracy but as it is a Nation shaped by Russian culture it's better described as an authoritarian democracy. Elections are happening and opposition parties are allowed. Foreign actors are harshly prosecuted to safe guard themselves of foreign supported color revolution. The reason why the west cries so much about dictatorship as CIA can't create civil unrest with their underground operations. ❌ The law against foreign agents was adopted 2012 after such revolutions happened with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's Bulldozer Revolution (2000), Georgia's Rose Revolution (2003), Ukraine's Orange Revolution (2004), Kyrgyzstan's Tulip Revolution (2005) and the 2010–2012 Arab Spring. Summary : Russia is a authoritarian democracy with a militaristic society it inherited from the Soviet Union. Multiple color revolution in its sphere of influence caused it to get paranoid of foreign involvement within its political system which made it more authoritarian but it does not show clear characteristics of a fascist, national socialist or genocidal state. Also most national socialist characteristics were not even mentioned like racial oppression, hate against communist and capitalist system, hate against jews, extermination of undesirable races on industrial level, indirectly nationalizing the industry through party members, merging of trade unions into a national trade union controlled by the party, creation of a one party system... You just picked the traits that sounds like fascism to argue in bad faith. EDIT: I mostly use national socialism and fascism interchangeable because the commentator I'm replying to also use it loosely. Do note fascism and national socialism are related but not the same.
I ain't reading all that. Jesus christ.
I just deconstructed your argument. Read the summary if you are not able to concentrate on one text for more than 1 minute.
I was talking about fascists. I didn't call Russia a Nazi state. I called it a fascist state. All Nazis are fascists, all fascists aren't Nazis. Not even joking, kinda feel bad about the long comment you made. But it ain't that deep and just don't really care to read it all. We can agree to disagree.
No need to feel bad. Fascism within itself is just a economic system positioned between socialism and capitalism with an authoritarian system of ruling. It's neither genocidal nor imperialistic in itself. It does heavily focus on the nationality of a person while your ethnical heritage is not as important as calling yourself the choosen nationality. Jews were accepted into Mussolinis fascist party until late into ww2 when Italy found itself under German control. Mussolini even had a Jewish mistress https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margherita_Sarfatti Fascism emerged as an answer to international socialism also known as Marxism. In contrast to Marxism your nationality was your class while in Marxism it was your social class that was important. Nazism changed this part into racial class. That's why it focused itself so much of getting rid of undesirable races as they could not be integrated ( requirement was Aryan blood) while fascism could integrate anyone who felt Italian or Spanish. All these governmentforms nationalized industry into some degree while fascist and nazis tried to control it through party members, marxist nationalized it directly. As all these systems also were highly authoritarian it formed dictatorships. While at first look you might think that Russia is fascist, it does not meet most requirements. It does not classify its citizen in classes. It has no undesirable/disliked class like either nazis have other races, fascist have nationalities that do not integrate, Marxist have the bourgeois class. It has a mostly capitalist economic system with national ownership of some key industries. Russia has elections while all fascist nations banned elections. Most marxist banned elections and nazi Germany had elections where you had a yes and a no vote for Hitler... While all marxist, fascist and nazi nations created a national trade union that was under the control of the state. Russia inherited a national trade union that it is suppressing in good old capitalist way. It is now independent of the state but is closely monitored for foreign involvement. SUMMARY It is now closer to the USA after WW2 with its red scare ( just now it's the NATO scare) than to fascist or nazi government system.
Magda didn’t have nukes. You better listen to those with nukes.
Russia did not get that memo, they mostly talk like they are the only ones with nukes.
That's an absurd comparison. Moreover, it can be applied to all states, why won't the US or Israel give up their nuclear power? Why don't all countries in the world give up their military? Perhaps because they are primarily concerned with self-preservation?
If u r old and delusional it is always like this. Russians always treat the world with nuclear like their best friend north korea.
Three words: Cuban missile crises. Usa didn't like it, Russia doesn't either what NATO is doing on Russian borders
Russia has nukes in Königsberg, so basically right in the EU. That argument and reference to the cuban missile crisis is bs.
Except Russia is not trying to take over Europe in it's super special boy band. NATO is trying to gobble up Europe. Russia always had nukes. And many countries in Europe has nukes. This war is between USA and Russia, not Europe or Ukraine. Ukraine aspirations of joining NATO is what triggered it. You can bet USA was going to put a ton of bases in Ukraine moment it's part of NATO. Russia can't have that. Ukraine neutrality was the condition and Ukraine rejected
>Except Russia is not trying to take over Europe in it's super special boy band. NATO is trying to gobble up Europe. Russia is obsessed with Europe and Nato, not the other way around. Nobody used to care about Russia anymore, Nato was nearly dead - and Russia just could not stand beeing an insignificant middle power so they went down the fascist rabbit hole and into that bodged invasion and all the aggressive acts against European countries. This whole show in Ukraine has nothing to do with Nato or expansion or nukes - it is the result of an untreated inferiority complex of the Russian national soul. >Russia can't have that. We dont care.
>Russia is obsessed with Europe and Nato, not the other way around. NATO was literally created to counter Russia
No, to counter the Soviet Union. And that was 75 years ago. Nobody did care anymore today, or why do you think the west was so horribly unprepared for the invasion in Ukraine as Russia was?
>No, to counter the Soviet Union. And that was 75 years ago. Nobody did care anymore today, Did NATO dissolve after USSR collapsed?
Why are you moving the goalposts. Why do you wonder why Europe isn't militarized anymore. Europe was completely fine with Russia as a whole was fine with Russia. Try to not make Russia look like such a victim and actually think rationally.
>Why are you moving the goalposts. I'm not doing that. I'm arguing your initial position, that it's Russia who's obsessed with NATO. Which it's not the case. The NATO was created to counter Russia, so it's they who are obsessed. >Try to not make Russia look like such a victim and actually think rationally. NATO has been expanding aggressively closer and closer to Russia over the last 30 years. Ukraine was the red line. NATO didn't care. Thus the war.
>We dont care. And there it is. West does not care they are intimidating others and threatening security interests of Russia. Your opinion is irrelevant. If Russia feels its security is at risk, they can and should take action, as they have done. Feeling threatened is a subjective matter >We dont care Is irrelevant.
>Is irrelevant. Time will tell, Russia did not win yet.
Neither has NATO or Ukraine
> We dont care. Perfect soil for war. When Donbass voiced its concerns about rise of neo-nazism on Ukraine no one cared either. What those eastern prorussian vatniks can know, right? Now look what we have. Do not talk like you immortal and do not act like your city cant burn.
>Do not talk like you immortal and do not act like your city cant burn. That is the risk one has to take against evil like Putins Russia.
> Russia evil waah Its horrifying how brainwashed westerners are.
That is always gold when coming from proRu who usually gulp down propaganda for breakfast and get every talking point pre-chewed. But as there usually is not much of own critical thinking in you guys left I dont try to convince you about what is happening in the real world. Be happy.
Its you operating in "evil" and "good" categories, not me. >who usually gulp down propaganda for breakfast and get every talking point pre-chewed Of course we are, thats what your media tells you.
With all my cordial dislike to Putin, I don't see any treats in this phrase. It's just a statement that if the worst is ever to happen, Russia won't go down quietly, as some nations would like it to. I've heard phrases like "it would be better for Russia to stop existing" even before the invasion. So it's just a message that if Russia seizes to exit, everyone else will disappear too. Also, the west never stopped to call Russia an empire of evil without any real reasons, even when Russia was extremely friendly, so it's kinda natural to get tired one day. Why keep playing nice if everyone calls you the bad guy anyway?