If Russia withdrew their troops, there would be peace immediately
That’s technically true. However, Russia uses military force in its sphere of influence for a reason, not solely because Putin bad (which he is, I’m a commie and Putin is fascist-adjacent at best).
Russia, like all big capitalist countries, wants to secure a sphere of influence in which it can do easy trade, influence the politics, and generally have support from these countries. The US does this for example with western Europe through NATO, and with less diplomatic methods by supporting coups and invading other countries. China does this through economic trade and through massive investment projects. Russia is in a weak position internationally, barely recovered economically from the dismantling of the USSR, and it’s surrounded by former soviet republics very much in a similar plane (barely economically recovered from the 90s crisis as a consequence of the dismantling of the USSR).
These post-soviet republics, such as Ukraine or Georgia, adopted capitalism (as Russia did) in a very quick and disorderly fashion, and the resulting oligarchs and capitalist owners ended up fumbled in a mix of pro-russian and pro-european/US positions.
The EU and the USA both exert pressure on these countries to try and bring them to their side. Being economically and politically stronger, they can use trade, diplomacy, intelligence and economic means to alienate these countries front the Russian sphere of influence. Russia, in a more precarious and weaker economic and political position, simply doesn’t have the means to maintain the diplomatic, economic and intelligence means to maintain these countries aligned to itself.
The war in Ukraine, much as the interference in Georgian and Romanian elections by the EU, mustn’t be understood as a struggle between freedom and oppression. It’s sadly just a struggle between two capitalist empires, namely Russia and US/EU, fighting for the control of smaller countries that they want aligned to themselves.
Once Russia doesn’t have the means to economically, diplomatically and through intelligence, to influence its former sphere of influence into staying by its side, the only option left is the military route. The US and the EU know this, and they keep trying to mess with Russia’s sphere of influence for gains to their empires. The reality is that there is no good side and no bad side: it’s just struggle between opposing empires.
So yes, technically if Russia withdrew its troops, there would be peace. But this peace would mean that firstly the surrounding regions around Russia, and Russia itself, would become colonies and vassal states of the western world. It wouldn’t mean “freedom” for Ukraine, as we can see by the exploitative contract for the minerals of Ukraine that the US offers. If you think the EU will offer something substantially less exploitative towards Ukrainians, you’re wrong.
Ukraine, sad as it is, as long as it remains a state between empires, will suffer the effects of both. And only socialism in Europe and Russia can offer a meaningful response to this.
And only socialism in Europe and Russia can offer a meaningful response to this.
I mean maybe, but that’s utopian given that all socialism efforts so far where actually authoritan regimes using socialism as a label. We don’t know whether it’d help, we have exactly zero data points.
Regarding the Ukraine problem in particular and the situation of Ukraine during socialism in Europe, I have already made a comment demystifying some of the most pervasive anticommunist, russophobic propaganda. Please give it a read and show me your thoughts :)
OK, please tell me how the NATO block is any better in this regard, haven’t you literally just been witness to the most open genocide in history and NOBODY in the west did anything to stop it?
Russia was by no means forced into the conflict. They did it because Putin wants more power for himself.
Russia has great diplomatic power. They managed to get a Russia loving president in US.
If Ukraine falls, then there’s going to be some other nation that will be the ”state between empires”. Next will be Moldova. Maybe Russia is brave enough to take on the Baltic countries as well now when the future of NATO is uncertain. If that succeeds, then Poland will be next, and maybe also eastern Germany.
Ukraine rejected the US offer because it didn’t offer any safety guarantees other than that Trump said that Putin said something. Why should Ukraine sign a deal that won’t end the war?
They managed to get a Russia loving president in US
Holy moly “great men historiography” and “Russia is behind everything I hate” both in one single comment, that’s quite the feat. Great job firstly ignoring the material analysis and geopolitics of the situation and trying to explain history as “big man makes decision”, and then falling for the racist trope that the USA isn’t capable of electing a fascist without external interference, as if the US wasn’t founded in the fascist principles of the Lebensraum and slavery->segregation
If Ukraine falls
Ukraine will not fall. The objective of Russia in this war isn’t pure expansionism further to the west, it’s the imposition of its political principles and strategic desires in its sphere of influence. The Russian government knows it cannot control successfully for a long period of time the now (understandably) anti-Russian radicalised sections of central and western Ukraine, what it wants are concessions in geopolitical and strategic terms. Mark my words: the war in Ukraine will stop sooner than later, and after it, only some sections in eastern Ukraine will be annexed to Russia.
Furthermore your reasoning of “if this nation falls, there’s gonna be the next”, is exactly the way Russia feels about its geopolitical allies. In 1990, there was an agreement that NATO wouldn’t push beyond Germany, and that has been violated first with Poland and then with more countries. Why push a US-backed military alliance to the borders of the US-declared main geopolitical enemy? What consequences do you expect from that? Imagine a Russian-led military coalition pushing for the annexion of Mexico.
Ukraine rejected the US offer because it didn’t offer any safety guarantees
Regardless of safety guarantees, the resources of western Ukraine will be plundered by the NATO block, whether it be EU or the USA I cannot know, but mark my words when you see the economic situation of Ukraine in 2030
That’s technically true. However, Russia uses military force in its sphere of influence for a reason, not solely because Putin bad (which he is, I’m a commie and Putin is fascist-adjacent at best).
Russia, like all big capitalist countries, wants to secure a sphere of influence in which it can do easy trade, influence the politics, and generally have support from these countries. The US does this for example with western Europe through NATO, and with less diplomatic methods by supporting coups and invading other countries. China does this through economic trade and through massive investment projects. Russia is in a weak position internationally, barely recovered economically from the dismantling of the USSR, and it’s surrounded by former soviet republics very much in a similar plane (barely economically recovered from the 90s crisis as a consequence of the dismantling of the USSR).
These post-soviet republics, such as Ukraine or Georgia, adopted capitalism (as Russia did) in a very quick and disorderly fashion, and the resulting oligarchs and capitalist owners ended up fumbled in a mix of pro-russian and pro-european/US positions.
The EU and the USA both exert pressure on these countries to try and bring them to their side. Being economically and politically stronger, they can use trade, diplomacy, intelligence and economic means to alienate these countries front the Russian sphere of influence. Russia, in a more precarious and weaker economic and political position, simply doesn’t have the means to maintain the diplomatic, economic and intelligence means to maintain these countries aligned to itself.
The war in Ukraine, much as the interference in Georgian and Romanian elections by the EU, mustn’t be understood as a struggle between freedom and oppression. It’s sadly just a struggle between two capitalist empires, namely Russia and US/EU, fighting for the control of smaller countries that they want aligned to themselves.
Once Russia doesn’t have the means to economically, diplomatically and through intelligence, to influence its former sphere of influence into staying by its side, the only option left is the military route. The US and the EU know this, and they keep trying to mess with Russia’s sphere of influence for gains to their empires. The reality is that there is no good side and no bad side: it’s just struggle between opposing empires.
So yes, technically if Russia withdrew its troops, there would be peace. But this peace would mean that firstly the surrounding regions around Russia, and Russia itself, would become colonies and vassal states of the western world. It wouldn’t mean “freedom” for Ukraine, as we can see by the exploitative contract for the minerals of Ukraine that the US offers. If you think the EU will offer something substantially less exploitative towards Ukrainians, you’re wrong.
Ukraine, sad as it is, as long as it remains a state between empires, will suffer the effects of both. And only socialism in Europe and Russia can offer a meaningful response to this.
I mean maybe, but that’s utopian given that all socialism efforts so far where actually authoritan regimes using socialism as a label. We don’t know whether it’d help, we have exactly zero data points.
Regarding the Ukraine problem in particular and the situation of Ukraine during socialism in Europe, I have already made a comment demystifying some of the most pervasive anticommunist, russophobic propaganda. Please give it a read and show me your thoughts :)
Mental gymnastics. Killing innocent people mercilessly is a problem, stop being an insane apologist for slaughter. Peace is peace.
OK, please tell me how the NATO block is any better in this regard, haven’t you literally just been witness to the most open genocide in history and NOBODY in the west did anything to stop it?
Holy moly “great men historiography” and “Russia is behind everything I hate” both in one single comment, that’s quite the feat. Great job firstly ignoring the material analysis and geopolitics of the situation and trying to explain history as “big man makes decision”, and then falling for the racist trope that the USA isn’t capable of electing a fascist without external interference, as if the US wasn’t founded in the fascist principles of the Lebensraum and slavery->segregation
Ukraine will not fall. The objective of Russia in this war isn’t pure expansionism further to the west, it’s the imposition of its political principles and strategic desires in its sphere of influence. The Russian government knows it cannot control successfully for a long period of time the now (understandably) anti-Russian radicalised sections of central and western Ukraine, what it wants are concessions in geopolitical and strategic terms. Mark my words: the war in Ukraine will stop sooner than later, and after it, only some sections in eastern Ukraine will be annexed to Russia.
Furthermore your reasoning of “if this nation falls, there’s gonna be the next”, is exactly the way Russia feels about its geopolitical allies. In 1990, there was an agreement that NATO wouldn’t push beyond Germany, and that has been violated first with Poland and then with more countries. Why push a US-backed military alliance to the borders of the US-declared main geopolitical enemy? What consequences do you expect from that? Imagine a Russian-led military coalition pushing for the annexion of Mexico.
Regardless of safety guarantees, the resources of western Ukraine will be plundered by the NATO block, whether it be EU or the USA I cannot know, but mark my words when you see the economic situation of Ukraine in 2030
Really well explained in both your comments…