From the Russian perspective, they seem to view NATO encroachment into Ukraine as an existential threat to their survival. IMO they will not cease hostilities until their objective of de-militarising and de-nazifying Ukraine are complete.
On the other hand, the West continues to escalate the situation and doesn't appear to care about Russian motives whatsoever.
I don't see this ending any time soon; neither side appears to care for the motives of the other and so far show no signs of backing down.
Will the West ultimately accept a Ukrainian defeat if that's what it comes to, or if that's what it takes to avert nuclear holocaust?
What do you think?
a stalemale can happen like in korea
I just think it'll happen after a lot more people needlessly die
I think the west is largely aware that it is simply delaying the inevitable to maximize MIC profits, justify replacing old gear that doesn't get used with new gear that won't get used, and try to reduce global trust and confidence in Russia (and possibly BRICS more generally)
The US army has been trying to get Congress to stop ordering Abrams tanks for years but Congress doesn't want to shut those tank factories down and the idea of paying skilled workers salaries to not produce things so as not to lose access to their labor is literally satan, so off to Ukraine they go!
I'm not sure how a Russian victory is even possible. If Ukraine's military is completely destroyed, we just get to the "Mujahideen" stage that Hillary Clinton and some others were dreaming about at the start of the war. Of course not historically identical to that situation (since in Afghanistan the US funding of extremist is what started the problems and caused the Afghani government to beg the USSR for help), but practically the same.
One of the neoliberal systems (NATO or Russia) is bound to survive. Probably both.
I don't think it's that bad in Afghanistan there was little Russian support outside of the cities whereas here Russia is only seeking eastern Ukraine where they do have local support
I don't think Ukraine geographically is as conducive to a partisan war as Afghanistan is, either. That said I don't think a full military victory is on the cards anymore, depending on how optimistic you are about Russian Armed Forces Ukraine either keeps sending armies and NATO equipment into the meat grinder until Russia runs out of artillery shells or they're just completely stalled out and won't make any more substantial progress.
That said I don’t think a full military victory is on the cards anymore, depending on how optimistic you are about Russian Armed Forces Ukraine either keeps sending armies and NATO equipment into the meat grinder until Russia runs out of artillery shells or they’re just completely stalled out and won’t make any more substantial progress.
I think you may have that a little backwards. Currently Russia is doing just fine, using a fraction of their full military potential as Ukraine burns through their own armies and supplies (which already happened for the most part a while ago) and then NATO stockpiles. Russia could keep this up for a very long time and be just fine. The big question is whether NATO (in other words, US interests) will seriously escalate the situation and bring us into WW3.
I am not sure if I agree or disagree on the comparison, but it is worth noting that Russia pulled out a lot the civilians in Donbas before the war began, something that has only expanded.
I don't think anyone currently at the helm is really all that committed to whatever they're doing, to actually launch nuclear war.
The West is not committed to Ukraine's original borders in the slightest, they'll happily cede the eastern regions of Ukraine to Russia as long as they meet the goal of obliterating as much of Ukraine as possible in the meantime, so that Western Capital can issue the loans to rebuild it and buy up as much of it on the cheap as possible. You also get a nicely unstable region, Russia included ideally in their minds, flush with weapons and cash in the hands of radicals who've just ingratiated themselves to the local population by being on the frontline. More terror attacks in Russia, mainland Europe too. The US can probably manage to turn somewhere in Eastern Europe into the next Iraq a decade or two after the Russo-Ukraine War "ends", or at least get UN peacekeepers in there to provide cover for illegal mining and laundering public funds through "defense contractors".
I think that there is an argument to be made that this has become the first conflict of a power struggle between the decline of western finance and the emergence of BRICS. I do not think the west will back down while their hegemony is threatened.
I think Russia is willing to talk as long as their security is on the table, the west is not willing to talk because it is not willing to consider Russian security when it feels that their financial hegemony is about to be lost.
I think it will rage on and only end with the very obvious transfer of finance power in the world. This is ultimately why there has been a unified western response, the entire of the west feels threatened.
Not a Ukrainian one, but a Western one. Ukraine will keep going until the west stops their support, the moment thats gone, it will capitulate in mere weeks.
Well the motive of DC is the destruction of Russia as a sovereign nation, the immiseration of it's people, and the carving up and stealing of all it's resources so I'd say Russia is taking NATOs motives very seriously.
I very much recommend giving the full 30 minute interview a listen here. Super-Imperialism in 84 seconds
The US is a rabid beast swinging without regard and will take everyone they can down with them, all so the rich can continue to bleed the globe dry.
World war will happen again inevitably unless capitalism is torn down
Good thing capitalism collapsing on its own doesn't lead to Fash-
Fuck.
doesn't lead to Fash-
Fashion? Well then hell yeah I welcome capitalism collapsing on itself!
Nah, Ukraine may run out of fighting age young men willing to run in to the meat grinder eventually. I doubt this war is as popular in cold, dark, hungry villages as it is in Kiev and on Twitter.
Is Russia still saying their objective is to 'de-nazify' Ukraine? I thought they dropped that rhetoric a few months into the conflict.
De-militarizing and de-Nazifying Ukraine is really the same thing so they're not incorrect in keeping that line
There's a non-zero chance that Putin will still be the leader of Russia. Biden is like 80. Some people don't like the idea of being ruled over by geriatrics but long lived leaders do promote stability. Also counterpoint, Hitler was 56 when he died, thats probably younger than average for world leaders in this day and age.
If we can expect another decade of Putin then we can expect another decade of Xi since he's younger. Also Un is gen x so he's gonna be around for a while. Honestly the cast of political leaders we have now is going to be with us for the next decade or more. Even Biden could live long enough for two terms.
the historical trajectory is already set and there is no turning back.
Yea ... :yea:
Why does it say that the US "lost" it's hegemony in 2004? I'd argue it's still the hegemonic force.
2004 was the year Americans all saw Janet Jackson's exposed boob on live TV during the halftime show of the Super Bowl.
the effect it had on our collective psyche was devastating.
GWB's coalition of the willing and Iraq 2 quagmire seems pretty accurate for loss of 'full hegemony'
especially compared to previously UN-approved interventions, if you can't get the pawns to fall in line anymore, it's not hegemony? it's just sparkling imperialism
This is mostly an economic war that happens to be a real war in Ukraine. Capital wants to devour value via the path of least resistance for the highest profits, and that calculation has brought capital's ravenous appetite into the periphery of the imperialist core.
I think the comparison I'm starting to make in my head is that Ukraine 2014 was the start of a similar process to Operation Condor in Latin America but in EU / NATO. The results of Operation Condor and other interventions in LA was getting nations under the thumb of US/western capital via things like IMF loans and reducing worker protections, etc. This was a long process that started with overthrowing or destabilizing nascent socialist or leftish governments. Much like the quote about fascism being imperialism turned inward, I think EU / NATO countries are the current layer being cannibalized by capital to maintain the financial empire. So you have this long process of escalating tensions in Ukraine to a breaking point in 2014, which caused the start of a civil war that was barely reported on in the west. EU / NATO are the path of least resistance because they are essentially easy/cheap marks currently. There's been a bit of question of the special relationship starting to bubble up, but the Ukraine war really makes that pretty untenable for much of EU / NATO conveniently.
While there are differences at play on the surface due to a real war and invasion occurring between bordering nations, that's actually a good thing for the interest of capital seeking to feast on the EU ultimately. I'm waiting to see more of a similar process to occur in the UK after Brexit. I think capital is a bit wary to invest there yet because the bottom hasn't been approached yet.
So to finally respond to your question, I think there are ways that BRICS and the realignment of the global financial order can certainly defuse this bomb without an explicit defeat of the whole of Ukraine. This is why Putin meeting with the other BRICS leaders is actually a positive sign in many ways. The big concern for me is if EU generally believes the Ukraine / NATO propaganda, they might start a larger war out of hubris. So far that hasn't happened entirely, but things are definitely moving in that direction. This is why the propaganda about RF forces being depraved and Putin being some arch villain are so dangerous. It can and likely will lead to EU nations drinking the koolaid by instigating a broader conflict. With what happened to those pipelines, it really highlights the restraint Russia has been operating under so far. And it also shows how economic and materialist this conflict really is deep down.
