6 ms·

I am an Indian, and unlike some of you westerners I don't perceive this through the value-based filters ("Russia evil, west good") that you view the war from. F

I am an Indian, and unlike some of you westerners I don't perceive this through the value-based filters ("Russia evil, west good") that you view the war from. For us from the Global South, what is happening in Ukraine is just pure interest-based politics between the superpowers, where Ukraine is the victim (due to the fault of its own leaders) between Russian and western superpowers. Ukraine's founding document, the 'Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine', Article IX states: “The Ukrainian SSR (Soviet Socialist Republic) solemnly proclaims its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, one that does not participate in military alliances and adheres to the three non-nuclear principles: not to receive nuclear weapons, not to manufacture or acquire such weapons.” Joining NATO clearly violates this. Thus, the major Russian goal in Ukraine is to punish Ukraine for breaking its promise to be a neutral country that would never endanger Russian security (a commitment that was also guaranteed by the Ukrainian constitution till pro-western Ukrainian leaders captured power undemocratically). This has been done by invading Ukraine, annexing Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine (to provide a land corridor to Crimea). (Crimea has Russia's only warm-water port and allows it to extend its influence to other neighbouring regions. NATO access to it would have crippled Russian Navy and Russian geopolitical strategies). Ofcourse, this war is illegal - but for superpowers, might has always been right. This goal of breaking up Ukraine to punish it has been nearly achieved as Russia has already captured 20% of their territory (Crimea + nearly all of Eastern Ukraine). Their secondary goal now is to prevent Ukraine from having a large army, joining NATO and ensuring Russia gets back its foreign reserves from the west (or capture more Ukranian territory, in lieu of it, if the west decides to keep their money). Ukraine has neither the money, the manpower or the weaponry to prevent this unless NATO or EU joins the war (which it will not do so). The major goals of the western superpowers (America, France and UK) was to ensure that Russia does not develop good political and economical relations with Europe as then Russia would compete in their Spheres of Influence in Europe. The Anglo-Americans especially needed Russia as a villain because without Russia as an enemy, NATO becomes irrelevant. Indeed, if European relations with Russia improved to the point of economic and military alliance, the possibility of a European army, with Russia in it, would have been a grave threat to the US. Already, American oil and gas industry were feeling the pinch of competing with Russia in Europe. Dangling NATO membership (which the west knew would never realistically happen because of Russian opposition) and engineering a civil war in Ukraine through the pro-western and pro-Russian Ukrainian leaders ensured Russia was sufficiently provoked to attack Ukraine. Russia can now be vilified and the current and next generation of Europeans will grow up hating Russia. This "generational hatred" thus sabotages any possibilities of the ties improving between Europe and Russia for the next few decades. Using the war, they have now been able to sway Sweden and Finland to give up neutrality and join NATO, which was another major goal of theirs - with Sweden and Finland in NATO, the Arctic Council is now fully NATO dominated, against Russia. This now makes it easier to curtail Russia's influence and vision for the Arctic region, where Russia is planning to build a new maritime route that would challenge the maritime powers of the west (mainly the US). Russia's Arctic vision (The Great Game in the Arctic: Why the region is the next flashpoint between superpowers - https://archive.md/sJ0fj https://archive.md/sJ0fj ) is why Trump (and the US, in general) is so obsessed with Greenland. Other secondary goals including capturing Ukraine agricultural economy etc. Russia and western superpowers have always known that the end result would always be a divided Ukraine.

tim333 10mo ago
>Joining NATO clearly violates this The thing is Ukraine didn't join NATO. If the Russians came to your part of Indian and started killing everyone to take their land justifying it with some BS about how you might have been thinking about NATO would you say there's no good and bad there and they are entitled to do that and NATO are equally to blame because the Russians claimed you'd thought about them? And re. Russia will of course win - I wouldn't be to sure about that one. Go bankrupt and collapse is another likely outcome. See Russia after the Japan war, after WW1 and after Afghanistan.
- thisislife2 10mo ago
  The thing is Ukraine didn't join NATO. - That's just word play without context. Ukraine didn't join NATO because Russia attacked it. If Ukraine had joined NATO, Russia couldn't have attacked it because Russia would then be fighting NATO, all over Europe, and not just the Ukraine military. (This again highlights one of the stupidity of Ukranian leadership - if you want to join any military alliance why announce it publicly? Why not do it discreetly?). > ... would you say there's no good and bad there ... That is where we Indians got lucky. Our founding leaders were smart enough to realise that India joining NATO would lead to China and / or Russia becoming our enemy or India forming a military alliance with Russia would make the west our enemy. And thus, we told them both bluntly that we wouldn't join any alliance against both, because we understood that you all are superpowers. So leave us alone. That confounded them as while it was in the interest of all superpowers to gain India as an ally in Asia, it was also in their interest to make sure that India didn't ally with their opponent. Thus, when they realised we were sincere, they fought with each other to keep us neutral! We have willingly sacrificed our sovereignty many times to the superpowers, to show due deference to them because our leaders know that superpower politics is not about good or bad, but simply about might and self-interest. Ofcourse, we weren't fools to fully capitulate to them completely. That is why we allied with other like-minded people and formed the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) because even superpowers dare not fight the majority of the world. That's a weakness of being a superpower - (1) they had to portray themselves as moral and superior, and (2) once a superpower starts calling another superpower an enemy, the superpowers can rarely politically unite as one against you. And that gives a non-aligned state political breathing space. We used that breathing space to strengthen the political unity of our country, to re-build our economy and our military. And so today, the superpowers interfere less and less in our affairs. Ukrainian politicians, on the other hand, invited the superpowers to meddle in their country's political affairs and thus broke the political unity of their country - one leader turned to Russia to protect his political power, another turned to the UK, and now the current one vacillates between the US and European superpowers to remain in power. I am sorry to sound so callous and apathetic - but do you see how Ukraine's problem is of their own making? No country can help Ukraine unless Ukraine politically unites as one, rather than fight amongst themselves calling their own countrymen as agents for the Russian or British or American - that is why there is a civil war there. Yes, Russia will win. Unless NATO or EU joins the war to help Ukraine, Russian defeat is impossible. Ukraine's military has no manpower today to launch any kind of meaningful counter-offensive against the Russians. That is why they can only defend, and they are unable to do that properly because they are ill-equipped. And so they are forced to retreat, ever so slowly, however bravely they fight. The Russians have already captured 20% of their territory, which Ukraine has no realistic hope of ever winning back. The new hope that Ukraine has, that Russia will stop fighting once its economy collapses, is just a fantasy. Neither is its economy going to collapse nor will it stop fighting even if it does. Ukraine isn't Japan or Afghanistan - a defeat against Ukraine, and Ukraine in NATO is an existential threat to Russia. And they will never allow it. (And it is precisely because of their experience with WW1 and WW2 that they are unwilling to let go of Ukraine or let NATO expand). India too was once enslaved by a superpower, because of weak political leadership. It's a lesson hard learnt. My advise to the Ukrainians would be stop fighting a war they cannot win, surrender and get the best deal you can from Russia to have peace. And then rebuild your country. Territory does not matter, people do - how many more Ukrainians need to die before Ukraine accepts it cannot win? I don't say this lightly - India too has lost territory to war against both China and Pakistan. We still stopped fighting when it was necessary to do so, while accepting these losses. As a civilization we have learnt that it is not the boundaries that matter but the people that make up the nation. (Sorry to be preachy ... ).

tim333 10mo ago

>Joining NATO clearly violates this The thing is Ukraine didn't join NATO. If the Russians came to your part of Indian and started killing everyone to take their land justifying it with some BS about how you might have been thinking about NATO would you say there's no good and bad there and they are entitled to do that and NATO are equally to blame because the Russians claimed you'd thought about them? And re. Russia will of course win - I wouldn't be to sure about that one. Go bankrupt and collapse is another likely outcome. See Russia after the Japan war, after WW1 and after Afghanistan.

thisislife2 10mo ago
The thing is Ukraine didn't join NATO. - That's just word play without context. Ukraine didn't join NATO because Russia attacked it. If Ukraine had joined NATO, Russia couldn't have attacked it because Russia would then be fighting NATO, all over Europe, and not just the Ukraine military. (This again highlights one of the stupidity of Ukranian leadership - if you want to join any military alliance why announce it publicly? Why not do it discreetly?). > ... would you say there's no good and bad there ... That is where we Indians got lucky. Our founding leaders were smart enough to realise that India joining NATO would lead to China and / or Russia becoming our enemy or India forming a military alliance with Russia would make the west our enemy. And thus, we told them both bluntly that we wouldn't join any alliance against both, because we understood that you all are superpowers. So leave us alone. That confounded them as while it was in the interest of all superpowers to gain India as an ally in Asia, it was also in their interest to make sure that India didn't ally with their opponent. Thus, when they realised we were sincere, they fought with each other to keep us neutral! We have willingly sacrificed our sovereignty many times to the superpowers, to show due deference to them because our leaders know that superpower politics is not about good or bad, but simply about might and self-interest. Ofcourse, we weren't fools to fully capitulate to them completely. That is why we allied with other like-minded people and formed the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) because even superpowers dare not fight the majority of the world. That's a weakness of being a superpower - (1) they had to portray themselves as moral and superior, and (2) once a superpower starts calling another superpower an enemy, the superpowers can rarely politically unite as one against you. And that gives a non-aligned state political breathing space. We used that breathing space to strengthen the political unity of our country, to re-build our economy and our military. And so today, the superpowers interfere less and less in our affairs. Ukrainian politicians, on the other hand, invited the superpowers to meddle in their country's political affairs and thus broke the political unity of their country - one leader turned to Russia to protect his political power, another turned to the UK, and now the current one vacillates between the US and European superpowers to remain in power. I am sorry to sound so callous and apathetic - but do you see how Ukraine's problem is of their own making? No country can help Ukraine unless Ukraine politically unites as one, rather than fight amongst themselves calling their own countrymen as agents for the Russian or British or American - that is why there is a civil war there. Yes, Russia will win. Unless NATO or EU joins the war to help Ukraine, Russian defeat is impossible. Ukraine's military has no manpower today to launch any kind of meaningful counter-offensive against the Russians. That is why they can only defend, and they are unable to do that properly because they are ill-equipped. And so they are forced to retreat, ever so slowly, however bravely they fight. The Russians have already captured 20% of their territory, which Ukraine has no realistic hope of ever winning back. The new hope that Ukraine has, that Russia will stop fighting once its economy collapses, is just a fantasy. Neither is its economy going to collapse nor will it stop fighting even if it does. Ukraine isn't Japan or Afghanistan - a defeat against Ukraine, and Ukraine in NATO is an existential threat to Russia. And they will never allow it. (And it is precisely because of their experience with WW1 and WW2 that they are unwilling to let go of Ukraine or let NATO expand). India too was once enslaved by a superpower, because of weak political leadership. It's a lesson hard learnt. My advise to the Ukrainians would be stop fighting a war they cannot win, surrender and get the best deal you can from Russia to have peace. And then rebuild your country. Territory does not matter, people do - how many more Ukrainians need to die before Ukraine accepts it cannot win? I don't say this lightly - India too has lost territory to war against both China and Pakistan. We still stopped fighting when it was necessary to do so, while accepting these losses. As a civilization we have learnt that it is not the boundaries that matter but the people that make up the nation. (Sorry to be preachy ... ).