Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Nancy Gomez26 said:To be blunt, I don't believe anyone or anything could have talked Putin out of his attempt to occupy Ukraine before it started. He was locked into his own narrative. In fact, he likely viewed any attempt to dissuade him from war as nothing more than intentional obstruction—which, in his twisted logic, probably served as the ultimate confirmation that he should proceed.

Regardless of how much blame we put on Putin personally, if someone else were sitting in that chair, this war would've happened anyway. This isn't just about one man—it’s the direct result of Russian ideology and long-standing policy. Who happens to be in charge is almost secondary at this point. Plus, you can't ignore the massive role China plays here.

Kate Lewis3 said:If China plays this smart, they win regardless. If Russia comes out on top, they get cheap resources from Russia while the West is busy sanctioning everyone else. If Russia loses, they'll just go back to business as usual with the West, buying up whatever scraps are left after Russia gets torn apart. Everybody wins except the people on the ground.

Not exactly. The Chinese economy is tied directly to the West—if the West hits a recession, China goes down with the ship.
At the end of the day, if the West is doing well, China does too.

rowdytiger13 said:The CIA believes Putin has reached a critical crossroads where his next move will dictate the entire future trajectory of the war.
They’re also warning against the mistake of underestimating Russia.
As for China, they’re perfectly fine with the status quo—right up until the West sinks into a massive recession, which would drag them down too. Their government has already had to step in to prop up their real estate market.
The dynamic between Xi Jinping and Putin has shifted. Putin isn't even trying to play the superior partner anymore. In this new power balance, China can exert serious leverage over Russia if they decide this whole situation starts hurting their own economy.
In reality, they have much more influence now than ever before.

They even had to jump into the banking sector because those guys played fast and loose with people's savings, dumping everything into risky investments that completely tanked during COVID. Suddenly, they were "out of cash"—meaning they didn't actually have the physical bills on hand to pay back their customers—so they just shut down online banking and froze the ATMs.

Once the news leaked, people absolutely lost it and tried to pull every cent out at once. And how does the state handle that? Standard procedure: tanks in the streets. Oh, and here's a new one for you: they started flipping people's COVID statuses from green to red just so they wouldn't be allowed to leave their houses to get to an ATM. If anyone still wonders why those damn COVID passes are such a direct hit to democracy, there's your answer.

Nathan Thomas12 said:Not exactly. The Chinese economy is tied directly to the West—if the West hits a recession, China goes down with the ship.
At the end of the day, if the West is doing well, China does too.

The West isn't going to collapse just because of sanctions on Russia.

Kate Cook27 said:The Chinese win either way. Honestly, I think they're positioned to come out ahead most cleanly—and if we're looking at who actually benefits from starting a war, maybe China was the one nudging Russia toward this whole mess😁?

Actually, China is taking a massive hit because of this war.

1. China relies heavily on imported energy.
The spike in energy prices has really taken a toll on the Chinese economy.
Which basically means—higher production costs.-

2. Their biggest customers are the wealthy nations in the West. As those countries deal with their own economic downturns, they’re going to buy less from China. And usually, it's the kind of stuff China can't easily sell anywhere else.
So—less revenue.-
On top of that, Western countries realized during the pandemic that relying solely on China was a mistake, so they're diversifying suppliers and trying to bring strategic manufacturing back to the West.

3. China imports a huge amount of food.
Because of this war, processed food prices are skyrocketing, which is going to be a real problem for a major net importer like China.

Maybe China can play the waiting game for a little while longer, but I guess if this war drags on, they might end up being big losers too.

Kate Lewis3 said:The West isn't going to collapse just because of sanctions on Russia.

The West won't fall apart, but neither will Russia. It’s a matter of scale. Both sides will feel the sting of sanctions, certainly, but Russia—being the economically weaker player in this equation—will take a much harder hit. They’ll be left dealing with far more severe and long-lasting consequences.

It’s not just China facing a Western recession—it’s everyone. A downturn like that? It means oil prices are going to tank.

analogbear5 said:It’s not just China facing a Western recession—it’s everyone. A downturn like that? It means oil prices are going to tank.

...and let's not forget that a collapse in oil prices hits Russia right where it hurts most...

lp

So, I saw this today... the gay pride march here in the States was absolutely covered in Ukrainian flags everywhere.

Donna Harris11 said:So, I saw this today... the gay pride march here in the States was absolutely covered in Ukrainian flags everywhere.

I guess you were expecting them to show up carrying icons of Putin instead?

velvetcanyon20 said:It’s deeply irrational. Honestly, it’s gotten to the point where if you look at any serious geopolitical writer from the last two decades, they’ve all basically argued that the only way to truly weaken Russia is by forcing them into this exact conflict with Ukraine.

The moment those paratroopers started dropping, I remember thinking... that was the day Russia lost.
There’s just no realistic way to hold 40 million people against their will without a massive logistical backbone.
For Russia, territory has always functioned as their defensive depth—a sort of buffer zone.
But looking at the numbers? Nothing is going their way. They don't have the population base, and their economy isn't up to the task.

We really ought to be looking at deeper analyses—the kind that project out twenty years or more.
It’s obvious the Americans are putting immense pressure on them. Perhaps there was a deep-seated belief in Moscow that this was a "now or never" window—a chance to make a move that would secure their standing for the next fifty years or so.

Sadly for them, the Americans are reading the room too. It’s clear to everyone that Putin is essentially a disciple of Dugin and his theories. Today's Russian rhetoric sounds exactly like Dugin back in 1997...
And back then, he was adamant that without "resolving" Ukraine, there's no point in even discussing continental politics. And well... here we are.

If that's the case, he isn't irrational by nature; he's just acting that way because they lack the capacity to pull something like that off.

Then again, maybe they actually could if they had competent leadership—people who knew how to build a functioning society and state system instead of running everything like a mafia outfit based on feudal hierarchies and mob bosses.

Video breaking down the latest moves from the Ukrainians over the last few weeks

Honestly, this guy delivers some seriously solid high-level analysis here.
And get this—the dude is actually an American too.

Bradley White73 said:I guess you were expecting them to show up carrying icons of Putin instead?

That’s what the people marching against Pride parades wear, I guess. It probably makes them feel like they're defending "traditional values."

Donna Harris11 said:So, I saw this today... the gay pride march here in the States was absolutely covered in Ukrainian flags everywhere.

So here is what I'm wondering...

Are those actually even gay people, or just folks who want us all to go to war?

Just imagine if this is being done on purpose by certain groups—using hatred toward the LGBTQ community as a way to stir up resentment against Ukraine at the same time.

Look, I’m not homophobic, and I don't have anything against them. But I keep seeing these Putin supporters on Facebook using this exact argument—claiming that the Nazi government in Ukraine is basically creating "fags" to push an agenda. Sorry for the language, I know those guys are just backwards idiots, but lately, it feels like this stuff is popping up so often it almost seems organized.

velvetcanyon20 said:It’s deeply irrational. Honestly, it’s gotten to the point where if you look at any serious geopolitical writer from the last two decades, they’ve all basically argued that the only way to truly weaken Russia is by forcing them into this exact conflict with Ukraine.

The moment those paratroopers started dropping, I remember thinking... that was the day Russia lost.
There’s just no realistic way to hold 40 million people against their will without a massive logistical backbone.
For Russia, territory has always functioned as their defensive depth—a sort of buffer zone.
But looking at the numbers? Nothing is going their way. They don't have the population base, and their economy isn't up to the task.

We really ought to be looking at deeper analyses—the kind that project out twenty years or more.
It’s obvious the Americans are putting immense pressure on them. Perhaps there was a deep-seated belief in Moscow that this was a "now or never" window—a chance to make a move that would secure their standing for the next fifty years or so.

Sadly for them, the Americans are reading the room too. It’s clear to everyone that Putin is essentially a disciple of Dugin and his theories. Today's Russian rhetoric sounds exactly like Dugin back in 1997...
And back then, he was adamant that without "resolving" Ukraine, there's no point in even discussing continental politics. And well... here we are.

Who exactly would want to "bring down Russia," and what does that even mean in practice?

The day those paratroopers went down was the exact moment I wrote that Russia had lost.
There’s just no way to hold 40 million against their will without any real logistics behind it.
For Russia, territory has always functioned as a defensive buffer and strategic depth.

That's a great point, but what we're really looking at here is... I haven't seen anything yet. the territory.

The numbers just aren't on their side. They lack both the population and the economic strength to make this work.
We really ought to be looking at more in-depth analyses that take a 20-year horizon into account.
It’s pretty obvious that the Americans are giving them a hard time.Maybe there was a deep-seated belief that this was a last-minute opportunity to make a move that would secure the next 50 years.

What’s the actual payoff for Americans in pushing for a direct confrontation with Russia?

"Quote:"

To their disappointment, Americans are reading between the lines too—they clearly see that Putin is a huge fan of Dugin and his work. Today's Russian rhetoric is basically just Dugin's ideas from 1997 on repeat. He basically said that there’s no point in discussing continental politics without first "resolving" the situation in Ukraine. And here we are.

Sorry for dragging this off-topic thread out, but if we follow your theory that the US is intentionally playing hardball with Russia, they’ve basically baited Putin. He seems more than willing to fall for the rhetoric coming from guys like Dugin, leading him to strike Ukraine—an act that will ultimately lead to his own downfall and the ruin of Russia. He just doesn't seem to realize he's being completely played.

Did I get your point right, or did I miss the mark?

Today, Joe Biden issued a plea to Putin to refrain from using chemical or nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

https://www.tf1info.fr/international...e-2232551.html

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/20...ues-en-ukraine

Thomas Walker84 said:Today, Joe Biden issued a plea to Putin to refrain from using chemical or nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

https://www.tf1info.fr/international...e-2232551.html

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/20...ues-en-ukraine

I find it highly unlikely—he isn't quite that reckless.

Chemical weapons, however, are an entirely different matter. 🤷

Rachel Richardson said:I find it highly unlikely—he isn't quite that reckless.

Chemical weapons, however, are an entirely different matter. 🤷

If he weren't unhinged, would he have even started this senseless war in the first place? When dealing with someone like him, can we really afford to expect anything less than total madness?

Rachel Richardson said:I find it highly unlikely—he isn't quite that reckless.

Chemical weapons, however, are an entirely different matter. 🤷

He might avoid the nuclear option, but when it comes to assessing his judgment, I don't trust Putin's mental stability. Chemical warfare is a much more volatile double-edged sword, especially when handled by amateurs. We have seen just about everything from the Russians in this war; we shouldn't be surprised by their next "brilliant" move.
Such a step would inevitably trigger further escalation, pushing the conflict onto a whole new level. Personally, I find it hard to believe the Russians actually possess the will to escalate any further.

velvetcanyon20 said:It’s deeply irrational. Honestly, it’s gotten to the point where if you look at any serious geopolitical writer from the last two decades, they’ve all basically argued that the only way to truly weaken Russia is by forcing them into this exact conflict with Ukraine.

The moment those paratroopers started dropping, I remember thinking... that was the day Russia lost.
There’s just no realistic way to hold 40 million people against their will without a massive logistical backbone.
For Russia, territory has always functioned as their defensive depth—a sort of buffer zone.
But looking at the numbers? Nothing is going their way. They don't have the population base, and their economy isn't up to the task.

We really ought to be looking at deeper analyses—the kind that project out twenty years or more.
It’s obvious the Americans are putting immense pressure on them. Perhaps there was a deep-seated belief in Moscow that this was a "now or never" window—a chance to make a move that would secure their standing for the next fifty years or so.

Sadly for them, the Americans are reading the room too. It’s clear to everyone that Putin is essentially a disciple of Dugin and his theories. Today's Russian rhetoric sounds exactly like Dugin back in 1997...
And back then, he was adamant that without "resolving" Ukraine, there's no point in even discussing continental politics. And well... here we are.

That affinity was quite abstract—a realm of shared delusions, really—and remained largely Platonic until recently, which is noted by the New York Times (see below). More specifically, the devotee of Dugin had a foothold in a well-funded think tank known as the Nexus Institute: https://nexus-instituut.nl/

In fact, in this profile of Dugin from the New York Times,
nytimes.com/who-is-the-father-of-fascism-with-a-russian-soul-alexander-dugin-guru-of-dark-reactions
it mentions the following (which I have also read elsewhere, along with the fact that Dugin was ousted from Moscow State University back in 2014—you can check Wikipedia for that; now, here is the excerpt from the linked New York Times article):

...
A more granular political analysis would reveal that Dugin does not possess nearly as much influence over the highest levels of Russian policy as the simplifying narrative suggests—the one claiming everything happening in the world's largest nation must be intimately tied to Vladimir Putin. Not a single meeting between the two has been recorded in recent weeks among the most prominent Russians, nor has there even been a mere mention of Dugin's name by Putin, aside from the posthumous awarding of the Order of Bravery to the fallen Darija. By signaling to the far-right fringes and issuing a symbolic call for national unity by describing a young extreme nationalist as the "true Russian heart," Putin is clearly demonstrating how internal enemies—those advocating for even more aggressive policies, regressive social values, and harsher militarization—are exactly what he needs right now. ...

It is curious that, contrary to this bold assertion, Dugin did indeed engage in conversation with the former, yet simultaneously current, US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken!
Someone clearly spared no expense, time, or capital to organize this peculiar discussion before a stadium full of enthusiasts:


Nexus Institute — a discussion featuring some rather "interesting" participants. For instance, we have the self-proclaimed former Islamic scholar Nelofer Pazira, who seems to be championing both Afghanistan and her current home, Canada:
Aleksandr Dugin, Antony Blinken, Nelofer Pazira and Leon Wieseltier (EDIT: plus a few others—honestly, I’m not sure why they aren't listed)
regarding military intervention, Russia versus the West, populism, and Afghanistan. You can find the full video of the debate here: https://nexus-instituut.nl/en/activi...ast-revolution

Who actually stands to benefit from "popularizing" Dugin like this—especially in the West, of all places? Who finds it profitable to artificially inflate Dugin's importance for an American audience? It seems SOMEONE has also invested quite a bit of money and effort into other similar debates—take, for example, Dugin vs. Bernard-Henri Lévy:

... and if you want a more comprehensive look at the Nexus Institute's activities, check this out: https://nexus-instituut.nl/en/activi...tain-revisited