4 ms·

Nations make their own Logic. The US has to control or befriend the oil producing countries to maintain the petrodollar (which really maintains the dollar, whic

Nations make their own Logic. The US has to control or befriend the oil producing countries to maintain the petrodollar (which really maintains the dollar, which is the lynchpin of the global economy). This leads to “wars for oil” where the US doesn’t take any oil (it just needs the country to return to the dollar market - so price their oil in dollars). Russia is a continental state so it requires its Neighbors to be weak so they cant threaten Russia. As much as it tries to escape this logic, it can’t. Russia’s core interest is to dominate and subjugate its near abroad. It has to. It’s the only way for it to become a global power.

dmix 10mo ago
> It has to. It’s the only way for it to become a global power. Unless of course doing so makes them far poorer and isolates them culturally/economically, and completely embarrasses their image of having a strong military.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- somenameforme 10mo ago
  What is your logic or rationale for this view? I think the contrary view is easy to argue - Russia is one of the head states in BRICS which is the largest international union in the world both by population, and which has also economically surpassed the G7 as well. And militarily they're fighting a war against an endless stream of forcibly conscripted bodies being armed and funded by the entirety of NATO, Europe, and a few odd balls -- and they're winning, at a cost of < 10% GDP. What other countries could match that?
  - jquery 10mo ago
    What are they winning?
    - somenameforme 10mo ago
      The peace treaty will clarify that, but I think the more important thing is the establishment of a multipolar world order. That, in and of itself, can lead to conflict, but I also have some optimism that it might bring in a paradoxical peace in the same way that nuclear weapons did. The reason nukes have been good is because it makes it clear that war is unwinnable which effectively ended direct conflict between world powers. Yet of course proxy wars are alive and well with Ukraine being the king of them all. And the US may be unable to defeat Russia in this war, but it's also equally unlikely that Russia could defeat the US in a similar scenario. So, "The only winning move is not to play." Of course this says nothing at all about relatively small regional conflicts, but in the grand scheme of things I'm far more concerned about WW3 than I am about these. That's not to understate the impact of what can (and is) happening in these sort of conflicts, but at the end of the day I don't think humanity will ever 'evolve' beyond war, and so in the mean time I think the goal should be to not end our species over something that will inevitably look like a pointless waste of life in a few decades. Keep in mind that WW1 was unironically called 'The War to End All Wars' before we started attaching an ordinal to it.
      - krige 10mo ago
        The peace treaty? What peace treaty? Multipolar world order is a buzzword that failed states like Russia certainly like to spout on their media channels to try and prove that they are not complete failures, and that in fact losing a million people to barely advance a frontline over 3 years is just and necessary. At this point they should be really worried about China just waltzing in on Siberia and taking whatever they need.
      - wiseowise 10mo ago
        > Fearmorgering about WW3 > multipolar world > nuclear rhetoric > proxy war Typical Russian schizophrenia to justify another conquest. How much are you getting per comment? 40 rubles?
      - plastic3169 10mo ago
        > The reason nukes have been good is because it makes it clear that war is unwinnable which effectively ended direct conflict between world powers. Yet of course proxy wars are alive and well with Ukraine being the king of them all. Not looking forward to being your proxywar or small regional conflict. It’s amazingly frustrating to be dragged into this without any provocation or possibility to actually affect the situation. Just unfortunate geography I guess. I don’t think nukes stopped the direct conflict between world powers. They made it possible for the first time. There is no reach to US without them. War in Europe or parts of Asia is easy the old fashioned way and seems to happen on a regular basis.
  - cosmicgadget 10mo ago
    I think you mean they're obstinately continuing the invasion they thought would be over in three days. Sending an endless stream of regulars, conscripts, and prisoners against people defending their homeland with drones and secondhand cold war gear. A million casualties for a territorial stalemate is certainly one kind of winning.
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
    - somenameforme 10mo ago
      Ukraine had a standing army in the hundreds of thousands, numerous heavily fortified front cities, and a substantial chunk of highly motivated 'nationalists' within their armed forces. The rhetoric about Ukraine falling in 3-4 days was completely nonsensical and came from Western official sources, including the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. [1] The only time it surfaced in Russian propaganda was from television personalities who were obviously being boisterous and hyperbolic. That the West would publicly release such 'enticing' rhetoric prior to the war itself is interesting. The war also isn't a stalemate by any interpretation. In the nominal sense Russian forces are making steady progress, most recently having entered into Pokrovosk [2]. But beyond that - war is rarely, if ever, a real stalemate when there are still large scale combat operations playing out. Rather it transforms into a war of attrition, where progress becomes non-linear. Ukraine is in the midst of a severe manpower shortage, but they still have enough forces to competently hold their defensive lines. But at the point that their manpower gets stretched just beyond that point, everything will collapse rapidly. In a way it's vaguely akin to a siege, except the resource under pressure tends to be manpower instead of e.g. food or water. [1] - https://www.newsweek.com/even-russian-propaganda-was-hesitant-claim-kyiv-would-fall-three-days-1832754 https://www.newsweek.com/even-russian-propaganda-was-hesitan... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokrovsk_offensive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokrovsk_offensive
      - RuslanL 10mo ago
        1. Manpower does not matter anymore. Drones and (soon) robots do. 2. I remember media sphere prior/at the time of invasion rather well. The general consensus was that Ukraine would fall in less than two weeks. The invasion itself started on the Fatherhood Defender's Day and I believe was supposed to be completed before the International Women's Day to make a good picture of Russian soldiers gifting flowers to Ukrainian women.
  - lostlogin 10mo ago
    They are only doing ok because of Trump’s support for Russia. Europe badly needs to get its shit together but if the US actually engaged, it could end the war promptly. It’s a pity Putin was gifted Crimea by the west.
  - wiseowise 10mo ago
    Propaganda ate your brain if you really believe BRICS is a real alliance or that it matches, or surpasses (sic!), G7. > And militarily they're fighting a war against an endless stream of forcibly conscripted bodies By… employing endless stream of their own meat and paying them obscene (locally) money. Difference is that Ukraine fights for survival. Reading your comment, I’m a bit confused about your moral compass. Would you also call Polish Armed Forces during WW2 “endless stream of forcibly conscripted bodies” when they resisted numerically superior opponent?
    - somenameforme 10mo ago
      BRICS overcame the G7 economically in 2018 with the difference growing sharply since then. [1] Currently BRICS has about 36% of the world GDP vs about 30% for G7. The world is changing far faster than most realize. Back in 2000 it was 43% for G7 vs 21% for BRICS. The world's changing a lot faster than most people realize. As for people voluntarily fighting for a country - I think that's certainly a noble cause. Not only the cause itself, but because it exemplifies that the leaders of that country have shaped a system that people are willing to die, and kill, over. It's a validation of a society. Of course it can also be a proxy for desperation - as you mention Russian enlistment offerings are rather extremely generous, but at least it remains a system that people opt into knowing full well what it entails. But on the other hand I find forced conscription barbaric. You are taking people who do not believe something is worth dying over, and forcing them to die, and kill, over it. I think it will be something looked upon in the future like we look upon slavery today. Is it a necessary evil? Maybe, but people argued the exact same of slavery in the past as well. [1] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1412425/gdp-ppp-share-world-gdp-g7-brics/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1412425/gdp-ppp-share-wo...
      - jquery 10mo ago
        >GDP in terms of PPP only relevant for local buyers, world economic power is still denominated in GDP, a flawed metric yet one that can’t be gamed. And G7 > BRICS by far in this
        10mo ago
  - Sammi 10mo ago
    BRICS isn't real. There's literally no BRICS union. These countries talk like there is, but in practice they don't do anything collaboratively. BRICS is just their propaganda tool. Empty words.

dmix 10mo ago

> It has to. It’s the only way for it to become a global power. Unless of course doing so makes them far poorer and isolates them culturally/economically, and completely embarrasses their image of having a strong military.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
somenameforme 10mo ago
What is your logic or rationale for this view? I think the contrary view is easy to argue - Russia is one of the head states in BRICS which is the largest international union in the world both by population, and which has also economically surpassed the G7 as well. And militarily they're fighting a war against an endless stream of forcibly conscripted bodies being armed and funded by the entirety of NATO, Europe, and a few odd balls -- and they're winning, at a cost of < 10% GDP. What other countries could match that?
- jquery 10mo ago
  What are they winning?
  - somenameforme 10mo ago
    The peace treaty will clarify that, but I think the more important thing is the establishment of a multipolar world order. That, in and of itself, can lead to conflict, but I also have some optimism that it might bring in a paradoxical peace in the same way that nuclear weapons did. The reason nukes have been good is because it makes it clear that war is unwinnable which effectively ended direct conflict between world powers. Yet of course proxy wars are alive and well with Ukraine being the king of them all. And the US may be unable to defeat Russia in this war, but it's also equally unlikely that Russia could defeat the US in a similar scenario. So, "The only winning move is not to play." Of course this says nothing at all about relatively small regional conflicts, but in the grand scheme of things I'm far more concerned about WW3 than I am about these. That's not to understate the impact of what can (and is) happening in these sort of conflicts, but at the end of the day I don't think humanity will ever 'evolve' beyond war, and so in the mean time I think the goal should be to not end our species over something that will inevitably look like a pointless waste of life in a few decades. Keep in mind that WW1 was unironically called 'The War to End All Wars' before we started attaching an ordinal to it.
    - krige 10mo ago
      The peace treaty? What peace treaty? Multipolar world order is a buzzword that failed states like Russia certainly like to spout on their media channels to try and prove that they are not complete failures, and that in fact losing a million people to barely advance a frontline over 3 years is just and necessary. At this point they should be really worried about China just waltzing in on Siberia and taking whatever they need.
    - wiseowise 10mo ago
      > Fearmorgering about WW3 > multipolar world > nuclear rhetoric > proxy war Typical Russian schizophrenia to justify another conquest. How much are you getting per comment? 40 rubles?
    - plastic3169 10mo ago
      > The reason nukes have been good is because it makes it clear that war is unwinnable which effectively ended direct conflict between world powers. Yet of course proxy wars are alive and well with Ukraine being the king of them all. Not looking forward to being your proxywar or small regional conflict. It’s amazingly frustrating to be dragged into this without any provocation or possibility to actually affect the situation. Just unfortunate geography I guess. I don’t think nukes stopped the direct conflict between world powers. They made it possible for the first time. There is no reach to US without them. War in Europe or parts of Asia is easy the old fashioned way and seems to happen on a regular basis.
- cosmicgadget 10mo ago
  I think you mean they're obstinately continuing the invasion they thought would be over in three days. Sending an endless stream of regulars, conscripts, and prisoners against people defending their homeland with drones and secondhand cold war gear. A million casualties for a territorial stalemate is certainly one kind of winning.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - somenameforme 10mo ago
    Ukraine had a standing army in the hundreds of thousands, numerous heavily fortified front cities, and a substantial chunk of highly motivated 'nationalists' within their armed forces. The rhetoric about Ukraine falling in 3-4 days was completely nonsensical and came from Western official sources, including the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. [1] The only time it surfaced in Russian propaganda was from television personalities who were obviously being boisterous and hyperbolic. That the West would publicly release such 'enticing' rhetoric prior to the war itself is interesting. The war also isn't a stalemate by any interpretation. In the nominal sense Russian forces are making steady progress, most recently having entered into Pokrovosk [2]. But beyond that - war is rarely, if ever, a real stalemate when there are still large scale combat operations playing out. Rather it transforms into a war of attrition, where progress becomes non-linear. Ukraine is in the midst of a severe manpower shortage, but they still have enough forces to competently hold their defensive lines. But at the point that their manpower gets stretched just beyond that point, everything will collapse rapidly. In a way it's vaguely akin to a siege, except the resource under pressure tends to be manpower instead of e.g. food or water. [1] - https://www.newsweek.com/even-russian-propaganda-was-hesitant-claim-kyiv-would-fall-three-days-1832754 https://www.newsweek.com/even-russian-propaganda-was-hesitan... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokrovsk_offensive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokrovsk_offensive
    - RuslanL 10mo ago
      1. Manpower does not matter anymore. Drones and (soon) robots do. 2. I remember media sphere prior/at the time of invasion rather well. The general consensus was that Ukraine would fall in less than two weeks. The invasion itself started on the Fatherhood Defender's Day and I believe was supposed to be completed before the International Women's Day to make a good picture of Russian soldiers gifting flowers to Ukrainian women.
- lostlogin 10mo ago
  They are only doing ok because of Trump’s support for Russia. Europe badly needs to get its shit together but if the US actually engaged, it could end the war promptly. It’s a pity Putin was gifted Crimea by the west.
- wiseowise 10mo ago
  Propaganda ate your brain if you really believe BRICS is a real alliance or that it matches, or surpasses (sic!), G7. > And militarily they're fighting a war against an endless stream of forcibly conscripted bodies By… employing endless stream of their own meat and paying them obscene (locally) money. Difference is that Ukraine fights for survival. Reading your comment, I’m a bit confused about your moral compass. Would you also call Polish Armed Forces during WW2 “endless stream of forcibly conscripted bodies” when they resisted numerically superior opponent?
  - somenameforme 10mo ago
    BRICS overcame the G7 economically in 2018 with the difference growing sharply since then. [1] Currently BRICS has about 36% of the world GDP vs about 30% for G7. The world is changing far faster than most realize. Back in 2000 it was 43% for G7 vs 21% for BRICS. The world's changing a lot faster than most people realize. As for people voluntarily fighting for a country - I think that's certainly a noble cause. Not only the cause itself, but because it exemplifies that the leaders of that country have shaped a system that people are willing to die, and kill, over. It's a validation of a society. Of course it can also be a proxy for desperation - as you mention Russian enlistment offerings are rather extremely generous, but at least it remains a system that people opt into knowing full well what it entails. But on the other hand I find forced conscription barbaric. You are taking people who do not believe something is worth dying over, and forcing them to die, and kill, over it. I think it will be something looked upon in the future like we look upon slavery today. Is it a necessary evil? Maybe, but people argued the exact same of slavery in the past as well. [1] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1412425/gdp-ppp-share-world-gdp-g7-brics/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1412425/gdp-ppp-share-wo...
    - jquery 10mo ago
      >GDP in terms of PPP only relevant for local buyers, world economic power is still denominated in GDP, a flawed metric yet one that can’t be gamed. And G7 > BRICS by far in this
      - 10mo ago
- Sammi 10mo ago
  BRICS isn't real. There's literally no BRICS union. These countries talk like there is, but in practice they don't do anything collaboratively. BRICS is just their propaganda tool. Empty words.