Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[axiomsofdominion]

Lula is better than Bolsanaro for sure and I'm glad he won and I was happy when he was freed but he's objectively wrong on Russia and Ukraine. Given Russia has made two efforts to conquer differing parts of Ukraine and he was not satisfied with his first conquest, there's no reason to believe he'll have a reasonable position on peace.

God knows no one would expect Hamas to accept terms are horrible as they expect Ukraine to.

[axiomsofdominion]

Things are about to get really bad for Russia. Wouldn't be shocked if Putin actually has to go through with his threat of a tactical nuke because his sh**t tier army starts getting rolled.

It is embarrassing because the USSR had some decent mid-list quality weapons. I'm not a tankie but Putin isn't fit to lick Stalin's left boot.

[axiomsofdominion]

Things are about to get really bad for Russia. Wouldn't be shocked if Putin actually has to go through with his threat of a tactical nuke because his sh**t tier army starts getting rolled.

It is embarrassing because the USSR had some decent mid-list quality weapons. I'm not a tankie but Putin isn't fit to lick Stalin's left boot.

What's the reason for this confidence on your part, that things are about to "get really bad" for Russia?

The US is letting Ukraine off the chain on hitting into Russia, they are starting to pick up significant amounts of advanced western warfighting material, their drone program is, ahem, taking off hard.

There's other stuff.

[axiomsofdominion]

So some Euro country is sending a Patriot missile system and we are sending another one. Poor Russia. Ukraine probably has a higher cash value military from the Patriots alone compared to Russia's whole trash army.

[axiomsofdominion]

Sir Woodbury is obviously an idiot, but I’d just like to raise the point that this proposal would require Ukraine to doom thousands of people in the liberated zone to Russian oppression.

Of course and it’s the prospects people like Lula who seems more concerned with shaming Ukraine for not curtailing to a nation that wants to genocide them never want to address but god knows when it comes to Gaza he doesn’t have that issue

Lula is a peace enthusiast and he wants peace for BOTH conflicts while ensuring every side still get to exist.

What you’re defending in Russia/Ukraine is the “all-or-nothing” approach that could maybe result in a “nothing” result where Ukraine gets fully absorbed by Russia, as Ukraine has less numbers in its favor for a war that lasts a decade or more.

Unyielding Nationalism (Russian or Ukrainian) is cancer, yet people here only really add fuel to the Ukrainian one. There needs to be some moderate that says “NO” to both sides and pushes for real peace, which is exactly Lula’s purpose as a peace enthusiast that doesn’t fold to either side. World needs a moderate that pushes for peace instead of more and more war.

Meanwhile, what exactly is Palestine’s cause? They barely even exist, there just needs to be ensured that they have a piece of land to live and administrate. Because Israel’s plan is to absorb just the land and make Palestinians go elsewhere as they aren’t willing to sustain the massive demographic shift by giving those people the same rights of a Israeli IF they really absorb Palestine in its entirety. It’s a full apartheid logic.

It’s way more serious and criminal than what even Russia is doing (though it’s still really bad), absorbing land but also the people living in it as well. The fact you don’t recognize the different natures of these conflicts is yet another proof you and the general Western establishment only really value land implications, giving zero s*h*i*t to the actual human lives involved.

Personally I support the US allying with Venezuela to conquer northwestern Brazil. Brazilian nationalists will complain but so what? Since Brazil has no hope of resisting the US they'll just have to give up the land. And given the problems Brazil causes to US interests the US is justified in splitting up Brazil. And since the US is less evil than Russia, they won't even keep the land for themselves!

[axiomsofdominion]

It's so ing surreal that Western leftists are whining that "we should negotiate with Putin!!!1!1" when Putin's negotiating position is "I want everything".

Well it is identical to their position on Palestine. Since Ukraine and Israel have US support they must be bad and their enemies should get everything they want.

[axiomsofdominion]

It's so ing surreal that Western leftists are whining that "we should negotiate with Putin!!!1!1" when Putin's negotiating position is "I want everything".

Well it is identical to their position on Palestine. Since Ukraine and Israel have US support they must be bad and their enemies should get everything they want.

I don’t really think you understand English if that’s what you believe that “negotiation” or “middle-ground solution” means.

It’s either that or trying to create a scarecrow in bad faith in order to prevent peace talks from ever happening. Which is very easy when it’s not you who have to commit.

Just because Putin/Russia comes to the table with a proposal that benefits Russia (obviously) doesn’t mean that THIS will be the final result of negotiations, just like Zelenskyy/Ukraine saying stuff that the war needs to go on until even Crimea is given back doesn’t mean that it will be the end solution just because it’s the end goal of Ukraine.

The point of negotiations is by nature to put the two sides on the table to scream at each other and then after putting everything out of their system to find COMMITMENT where both sides can claim victory but not really a full victory that satisfies the full demands of both.

Ukraine - Needs to ensure that it still gets to exist on some level and stop sacrificing its entire male youth population. And it needs guarantees that what exists of Ukraine isn’t attacked, a protection that only NATO/EU can give.

Russia - Needs a guarantee domestically that it “won” the war (the only thing that will make it end, as its an existential matter for Russia) and achieved their initial goals and ensuring Eastern Ukraine territories become a buffer zone between the West and Russia is the best way to claim that.

Ukrainian government becoming Neutral or Pro-Russia wouldn’t solve anything as there would still be the unstoppable Anti-Russian sentiment from population after Russia invaded it, so best possible solution is for Ukraine to buy their freedom by giving up the territories it already lost UNDER THE CONDITIONS that it becomes a NATO and EU country.

Which is why USA and Europe need to swallow their pride and drive negotiation talks under those terms in order to give Ukraine the safety conditions it needs. So far Ukrainians have only been used as cheap manpower to somewhat waste Russian military resources, but it’s not sustainable for Ukraine for this to go on forever.

You people say the end goal is to get Russia out of Ukraine completely but NEVER are capable of an intellectual argument on HOW you are going to achieve this idealistic scenario whenever reality forces itself.

And even if this WERE possible, you ignore that Russia would never accept that kind of humiliation and would be forced to escalate in a way they do have capabilities of doing. Which would only ADD more tragedy to Ukraine situation. Your whole mindset in this forum is one of escalation when what we need is de-escalation.

There are 2 simultaneous truths regarding this whole conflict:

1. Ukraine needs to keep existing on any possible level.
2. Russia cannot have a humiliation that forces them to escalate this to something larger.

The sooner you accept these two simultaneous truths, the sooner you will drop your toxic “all-or-nothing” pro-war mentality and support direct negotiation talks between Ukraine and Russia.

The Switzerland forum is a complete joke, you NEED to have both Ukraine and Russia talking directly to each other for anything to get done, under mediation of third parties such as USA; China; Brazil and Europe.

Delusional.

[axiomsofdominion]

Oh please Red, Russia demanding Ukraine surrender 5 oblasts to Russia they either partially or majority control as a “condition to start” talks isn’t a hard line it’s a ridiculous demand of a delusional government. Also it’s really telling how much you and Lula demand that Russia’s feelings be respected when you obviously don’t feel that about Israel. In that case you guys want international and economic pressure put on Israel to pull out of Gaza completely something that you not only don’t support for this situation but openly root on your country or South Africa still trading with Russia and enabling their genocide here

I don't know what you expect from Brazil? Business as usual. At least Lula is, somehow, better than Bolsonaro.

[axiomsofdominion]

And even if this WERE possible, you ignore that Russia would never accept that kind of humiliation and would be forced to escalate in a way they do have capabilities of doing. Which would only ADD more tragedy to Ukraine situation. Your whole mindset in this forum is one of escalation when what we need is de-escalation.

There are 2 simultaneous truths regarding this whole conflict:

1. Ukraine needs to keep existing on any possible level.
2. Russia cannot have a humiliation that forces them to escalate this to something larger.

The Russians are already pulling out all their capabilities to fight this war, or at least without threatening Putin's rule. They are not holding anything back in case they "need" to escalate, because they have already escalated as far as they can.

In fact, all but one of Russia's air defences have been revealed to be ineffective against Ukrainian attacks, and the Russians are now moving their only S-500 unit - previously defending Moscow - to defend Crimea. In other words, Russia outside Crimea is now defenceless against Ukrainian air attacks just as Ukraine is receiving its first F-16s. That's already a humiliation, which according to Russia's own white paper, would justify a nuclear retaliation.

So, such a humiliation that would "force" Russia to escalate has already long come and gone. What next?

I assume he means they'd start nuking stuff. In which case his opposite position on Israel, who also has nukes, makes no sense.

[axiomsofdominion]

I assume he means they'd start nuking stuff. In which case his opposite position on Israel, who also has nukes, makes no sense.

The Kremlin has been threatening nukes every other Thursday for the past two years. In any case, every nuclear power (except North Korea) has lost a war without ending the world. The less this is mentioned, the more credible the deterrent.

I agree, but that is the guy's argument even if it is bad.

[axiomsofdominion]

https://mstdn.social/@noelreports/112615627505448088

Elimination of Russian BMP-2 and 5 troops. Russians should go home.

[axiomsofdominion]

So after all the ranting and raving about Western hypocrisy via Israel you’re self admitting to being a bad faith and give Russia a pass on its awful conduct that you won’t give Israel’s because one is more of an ally than the other. Also spare me this “oh what could we do?” routine both your country and South Africa (whom you also rooted on still trading with Russia) threatening with cutting off trade would go a long on Russia’s ability to continue this war

Not at all, as I’ve never pretended to treat these matters through only the eyes of “Morals and Principles”, I always take the “Geopolitical” factor into equal and important consideration.

Otherwise you end up turning into Gabriel Boric or like you! That’s the burden YOU choose to carry by forcing yourself to always be morally consistent.

“Morals and Principles” are an universal truth while “Geopolitics” are way more subjective but you cannot simply act like they are complete separate entities. Countries should follow their self-interest without compromising their morals in the best possible way they can.

I don’t believe in either “Moral” purists and false saints that are shallow and overly-idealistic (Like you, inevitably bound to contradiction because that’s an impossible standard to follow) or “Geopolitics realists truthers” that are overly-pragmatic and are capable of the worst possible stuff for self-interest only (the OSR types). There is a possible way of finding the best balance, which is inherently different for each reality.

That is an absolute load of horse dung. You clearly make “morally and principal” FP positions or your attitudes towards Palestine makes no sense as they serve no great geopolitical benefit to Brazil, if you were the actual cynical geopolitical thinker you claim to be then you wouldn’t be so hostile to the US or the West because new flash the West is still the big dogs by a mile and being economically tied with US would benefit Brazil more than this BRICS simping bit you got going.

You see, that’s why it’s great to be a man of word because you can go back to your previous words that they alone will support your response today:

I don’t believe in either “Moral” purists and false saints that are shallow and overly-idealistic (Like you, inevitably bound to contradiction because that’s an impossible standard to follow) or “Geopolitics realists truthers” that are overly-pragmatic and are capable of the worst possible stuff for self-interest only (the OSR types). There is a possible way of finding the best balance, which is inherently different for each reality.

I clearly already said that I don’t believe in your purism and absolutist notions of reality, be it on a “full moral idealism” OR a “full cynical realism”. That’s not a good way to approach or understand people’s positions, as nobody works under absolutisms.

You seem to force the weird notion that people can only be 100% idealists or 100% realists but these things simply don’t EXIST in the real world where every people naturally act balancing these two elements, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. Even a self-proclaimed idealist like you who believes they will always pick the “moral consistent” position is bound to eventually enter in contradiction because that’s impossible to sustain while always being successful and effective.

People putting their self-interests into consideration on some matters don’t mean they don’t have ANY moral concerns, just like having moral standings also don’t mean people necessarily have to be stupid and naive either.

The reason I know I bother you so much is that I DO take MY self-interest into consideration while still having moral standards just like Americans here do for theirs, which is something people like you are conditioned to believe it doesn’t exist or that it simply doesn’t matter in terms of 3rd world self-interest.

Only White Western countries were “allowed” to play geopolitics and ever be realists and cynical when it concerns global affairs and THAT’S how they got a larger share of the pie, under the validation that slavery and white supremacism gave to them in justifying their entitlement to that position.

Can you see how that the “superior” liberal democracy values that you hold as important are necessarily tied to that kind of historical privilege? Which means that MORE places fighting their self-interests STRENGTHENS liberal democracy over time in a way that’s much more distributed and fair.

Many places in global south for instance would’ve been more advanced as liberal democracies as western countries are if they HAD the privilege of not having to fight anti-democratic foreign enforcement or  colonialism. So the increasing emergence of the Global South as a player that puts their interests on the front is a WONDERFUL development for Real Liberalism actually, it’s just not for White Liberalism (which is only concerned about it existing within white borders).

So if it’s minimal cynicism coming from the Global South that bothers you, you better get used to it because they won’t be just cheerleaders to give moral validation to the West only when it’s convenient for Western interests. If it bothers too much then the West can start reflecting on how more useful it can be on attending Global South interests under a true mutual cooperative logic in order to shift the current logic of self-interest that it exists.

About your last point, I agree that it would be good for Brazil self-interests to have US at its side but you need to ask US if it WANTS to have Brazil (or Latin America or the whole South for that matter) on its side more often because what we see from US foreign policy these days is a massive disinterest on showing itself as useful.

China economically is still taking up more and more space for example and US position instead of giving counter economic opportunities to compete with them, resorts itself to this same crying you do about being inherently better to side with US in exchange of nothing. Which shows how entitled and tired you’ve grown in the last decades after WW2.

That interest simply doesn’t exist, US is focused on what worked in the past and has its eyes only at White Europe + neighbors to its current main rival, China.

Ukraine is completely irrelevant to US on a practical and it receives billions and more billions of US dollars to be put in weaponry, guns, deaths, etc. US Democrats talk so much about the importance of environmental preservation and send less than 0.1% of that money to Brazil in order to help protect the Amazon from illegal advances. So that benefit of “siding with US” that you talk about simply doesn’t exist if US doesn’t want to side with us.

The fact that you think Ukraine is irrelevant to the US shows that you have nothing of value to contribute. That's a ridiculous position. Preventing Russia from controlling/conquering Ukraine has enormous value to the US. Now if Russia could keep to itself maybe Ukraine wouldn't be so important.

[axiomsofdominion]

The fact that you think Ukraine is irrelevant to the US shows that you have nothing of value to contribute. That's a ridiculous position. Preventing Russia from controlling/conquering Ukraine has enormous value to the US. Now if Russia could keep to itself maybe Ukraine wouldn't be so important.

No it doesn’t, otherwise it would be an establishment CONSENSUS partisan position from US politicians exactly like Israel is also treated. You know that well.

The fact that many Republicans are open or even enthusiastic about dropping US participation on this conflict to focus on other ones they find more critical or even on US domestic matters shows how Ukraine War in US is more of an ideological distraction than a real existential matter for US interests.

Obama himself said once that war with Russia about Ukraine would be futile based simply on the fact that Russians have more stake in it than Americans.

Democrats changed this understanding partially motivated on anger at Putin based on their own 2016 election grievances. But the matter itself clearly has limited (at most very little) importance to US practical interests.

Israel matters a lot to US interests and that’s reflected on the bipartisan support. Taiwan would be same thing, with both parties positioning against China on the matter. Iran will be an adversary to both parties because of US interests.

The divide on Ukraine is possible to exist from within exactly because of the low relevance to USA. USSR was never as powerful as China is today and Russia is already a much more decadent power than USSR, trying to reach to old glory.

If Russia WERE to fully occupy Ukraine, it would change s*** for the US or its interests. Which is exactly why you’re not REALLY helping Ukraine as much as you could, as it wouldn’t be on your self-interest to take the risk of sending your men to the war or entering an unnecessary direct conflict with Russia for something that isn’t as important to you.

You just need to analyze your own actions to understand where they come from and why they happen. If you really wanted the war to end and more favorably towards Ukraine, you could make Russia back down. You just don’t think what’s in play is worth the risk.

The people opposed to Ukraine support have always been MAGA russian shills and lefty tankies. Mike Johnson even opposed support till he got read in by the military.

Russia and China are both on the decline sure, but they are still dangerous and anti-western. Putin dreams of retaking the USSR territory even if he is not an atheist vanguardist communist.

In any case China is no more relevant than Russia. Their economy is failing, their population is declining, etc.

The average American has zero understanding of US foreign policy. Whether or not you agree with specific decisions by the US, which I generally don't, the fact is that voters are insulated from the problems of the world because America is so powerful. Could we have made better choices? Absolutely. Doesn't make normie Americans not coddled and ignorant.

The government has to weigh the importance of foreign policy situations against voters whining.

[axiomsofdominion]

If Russia WERE to fully occupy Ukraine, it would change s*** for the US or its interests. Which is exactly why you’re not REALLY helping Ukraine as much as you could, as it wouldn’t be on your self-interest to take the risk of sending your men to the war or entering an unnecessary direct conflict with Russia for something that isn’t as important to you.

You just need to analyze your own actions to understand where they come from and why they happen. If you really wanted the war to end and more favorably towards Ukraine, you could make Russia back down. You just don’t think what’s in play is worth the risk.

Putin has been very clear that he won't stop at Ukraine. If he takes all of it, the rest of Eastern Europe would be next.

Yes, US support towards Ukraine has been half-hearted, so that even the Germans have become more aggressive. But, remember that US support towards Britain in 1940 was even more half-hearted, and that FDR had to coax and coddle Congress, and find loopholes, to allow meaningful support. Domestic partisanship interfering with foreign policy isn't new.

And BTW, referring to Russia as being outside "White Europe" is ludicrous, since Putin intentionally targets Muslim and Mongol ethnic minorities for conscription to be his cannon fodder. So many young men from some of these ethnic minority groups have died that the survival of these groups is in question. And that's before the reports of young men from Africa and South Asia being lured with promises of jobs or education in Russia, into the Russian army. Putin has proven himself to be the white supremacist racist in this war, and not anyone in Washington or Kyiv.

The people opposed to Ukraine support have always been MAGA russian shills and lefty tankies. Mike Johnson even opposed support till he got read in by the military.

Russia and China are both on the decline sure, but they are still dangerous and anti-western. Putin dreams of retaking the USSR territory even if he is not an atheist vanguardist communist.

In any case China is no more relevant than Russia. Their economy is failing, their population is declining, etc.

The average American has zero understanding of US foreign policy. Whether or not you agree with specific decisions by the US, which I generally don't, the fact is that voters are insulated from the problems of the world because America is so powerful. Could we have made better choices? Absolutely. Doesn't make normie Americans not coddled and ignorant.

The government has to weigh the importance of foreign policy situations against voters whining.

Correction: China even with its currently struggling economy is still extremely powerful, simply due to its sheer industrial might. More than 50% of the world's steel production, over 40% of the world's shipbuilding capacity, 30% of the world's manufacturing sector. Its technology might not be the best, but Stalin said that quantity is a quality of its own.

As for US foreign policy in general, so much of it is based on pandering to an extremely narrow domestic constituency at the expense of the overall national interest. There's zero explanation for the sanctions against Cuba - which has caused tremendous damage to US influence in Latin America - other than Florida's status as a swing state, and everyone knows that. The policy towards Israel...well, the less that's mentioned, the better.

Our policy on Israel makes sense given our broader middle eastern policy. Cuba of course makes no sense. It's just pandering as you say.

[axiomsofdominion]

"Putin appoints his niece, billionaire Anna Tsivileva as Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister."

https://x.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1802709197936591251

"Billionaire". Yeah cause she's his niece.