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?

    • aqwxcvbnji [none/use name]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Why does it say that the US "lost" it's hegemony in 2004? I'd argue it's still the hegemonic force.

      • came_apart_at_Kmart [he/him, comrade/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

      • culpritus [any]
        ·
        2 years ago

        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