To be America's enemy is dangerous, but to be its ally is fatal

Russia is a huge country has plenty of minerals and a low population. Trading people for more minerals isn't exactly in Russia's interest.

- The least racist westie has logged on.
These minerals threaten the Russian economy and their soft power over other European nations. If Germany can get their fuel supply from Ukraine rather than Russia that weakens Russia
- One problem with this theory is that Russia was perfectly fine with Ukraine trading with Europe until the coup in 2014 happened.
  
  They were fine with Ukraine trading with other European nations but weren't ok with them not wanting to be under Russian control.
  Remember Ukraine traded in nukes to get protection from Russian imperialism.
  
  They weren't under Russian control. What actually happened was that the west was not ok with Ukraine being independent and instigated a coup there. Incredible how trolls now twist this to be backwards.
  
  What actually happened was that the west was not ok with Ukraine being independent and instigated a coup there.
  By independent, you mean controlled by the same oligarchic system as the Russian federation?
  While you are correct that Russia really didn't need the minerals in Ukraine, they did want to maintain relations with the oligarchs that controlled the majority of Ukraine wealth. They especially wanted to maintain relations with the oligarchs like Akhmetov, Kolomoisky, Pinchuk, and Firtash. Who were responsible for mediating Russian gas sales to Ukraine.
  Of course the US has their fingers in geopolitics around the globe, but giving them credit for the revolution in 2014 is a bit generous imo. I mean, when is the last time America did anything at this scale with any kind of competency?
  In 2008, the combined wealth of Ukraine's 50 richest oligarchs was equal to 85% of Ukraine's GDP.[3] In November 2013, this number was 45% (of GDP).[
  In reality this is the reason for the revolution. It's also the same reason why America's billionaire president is now supporting Russia. The ultra wealthy have long craved the control Russia's oligarchy has over the state.
  
  By independent, you mean controlled by the same oligarchic system as the Russian federation?
  As opposed to the oligarchic system in the west?
  While you are correct that Russia really didn’t need the minerals in Ukraine, they did want to maintain relations with the oligarchs that controlled the majority of Ukraine wealth. They especially wanted to maintain relations with the oligarchs like Akhmetov, Kolomoisky, Pinchuk, and Firtash. Who were responsible for mediating Russian gas sales to Ukraine.
  Russia wanting to maintain economic relations with Ukraine isn't the conspiracy theory you seem to think it is.
  Of course the US has their fingers in geopolitics around the globe, but giving them credit for the revolution in 2014 is a bit generous imo. I mean, when is the last time America did anything at this scale with any kind of competency?
  The credit goes to the US and it's pretty well documented at this point https://kitklarenberg.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-a-coup-how-cia-front-laid
  In reality this is the reason for the revolution. It’s also the same reason why America’s billionaire president is now supporting Russia. The ultra wealthy have long craved the control Russia’s oligarchy has over the state.
  In reality, the reason for the coup is that certain oligarchs in Ukraine decided to throw their lot with the US. The US will now get a return on their investment when they take over whatever resources left in Ukraine that Russia doesn't take.
  
  As opposed to the oligarchic system in the west?
  Did I deny that the west had its own oligarchic system? No, it wasn't pertinent because we were talking about Ukraine prior to 2014.
  Your claim was that Ukraine was "independent", when in reality the majority of the wealth was held by Ukrainian oligarchs with deep ties to Russian capital.
  Russia wanting to maintain economic relations with Ukraine isn't the conspiracy theory you seem to think it is.
  Russia wanting to maintain control of Ukrainians politics through the wealth of their oligarchs is literally a conspiracy. I'd say it's a lot more influential than a US backed org like freedom radio or what have you.
  The credit goes to the US and it's pretty well documented at this point https://kitklarenberg.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-a-coup-how-cia-front-laid
  Ahh, yes... The national endowment fund..... So powerful they could take over the government by funding..... Independent Journalism?
  Surely having a few people control 80% of the countrys wealth has nothing to do with people being upset at the status quo..
  certain oligarchs in Ukraine decided to throw their lot with the US
  Yeah, because that worked out for them....
  November 2023 there were only two billionaires left in Ukraine, these being Rinat Akhmetov ($6.59 billion) and Viktor Pinchuk ($1.72 billion).[7] In November 2022 they had counted nine billionaires.[7] The February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and its negative impact on the economy of Ukraine led to the decline in billionaires.[8]
  
  Did I deny that the west had its own oligarchic system? No, it wasn’t pertinent because we were talking about Ukraine prior to 2014.
  Thanks for confirming that you didn't have any actual point to make here.
  Your claim was that Ukraine was “independent”, when in reality the majority of the wealth was held by Ukrainian oligarchs with deep ties to Russian capital.
  It was independent in a sense of having sovereign domestic policy which it lost after the coup by the west. If Ukraine was allowed to stay independent then the war would not have happened.
  Russia wanting to maintain control of Ukrainians politics through the wealth of their oligarchs is literally a conspiracy. I’d say it’s a lot more influential than a US backed org like freedom radio or what have you.
  We've already established that it's actually that the west that wants to maintain control over Ukrainian politics as was evidenced by the west overthrowing the government in Ukraine. The fact that you're unable to acknowledge this basic fact shows that you lack even a shred of intellectual integrity.
  Ahh, yes… The national endowment fund… So powerful they could take over the government by funding… Independent Journalism?
  Literally that org that is known for doing regime change around the world. You should do an AMA on what it's like to walk around in those clown shoes of yours.
  Yeah, because that worked out for them…
  People doing things that backfire on them isn't uncommon. The whole western proxy war is backfiring right now as well.
  
  didn't have any actual point to make here.
  Being purposely obtuse is not a rebuttal....
  was independent in a sense of having sovereign domestic policy which it lost after the coup by the west.
  Just because the people of Ukraine overthrew a government that was being controlled by the benefactors of Russian capital for a government controlled by people who want to take loans from the US and Western Europe does not mean there was a "coup by the west".
  Not surprisingly you are stripping any sense of autonomy from the people of Ukraine. Could it be that the people of Ukraine were just tired of being the poorest nation in Europe despite their size, agricultural output, and mineral wealth?
  Ukraine was allowed to stay independent then the war would not have happened
  Meaning if Ukraine had continued to be controlled by oligarchs loyal to Russia, Russia wouldn't have had to invade. Sure.
  We've already established that it's actually that the west that wants to maintain control over Ukrainian politics as was evidenced by the west overthrowing the government in Ukraine.
  I don't think posting the substack of an author who works for the Russian media is really enough to establish anything. The guy is clearly not a reliable narrator, and his "evidence" is hardly sufficient to validate his claims.
  shred of intellectual integrity.
  Lol, the pot calling the kettle black.
  Literally that org that is known for doing regime change around the world.
  Every powerful nation in the world has lobbying groups of a similar order. Saying that they are solely responsible for regime change all over the world is just reductionist and ignores the autonomy of the people in those nations.
  The whole western proxy war is backfiring right now as well.
  So America is so powerful they can overthrow a nation with a ngo, but so weak they can't capitalize on it...... curious.
  
  Ah yes, well documented facts are RuSsIAn ProPaGandad. Brains as smooth as bowling balls around here.

If the war was purely economical it would have ended by now

If it was purely economical, it never would have started. The only things the last two years has accomplished has been to decimate the military readiness of Central Europe and inject fascist politics into the bloodstream of every country inundated with refugees.
Nobody is winning except the Hitlerites.
- They were under the impression that it was a 3 day bonanza, not a long war because they sipped their own propaganda
  
  Sure. Same with the US Invasion of Iraq. "Six days, six weeks, I doubt two months" per Donald Rumsfeld.
  But that was to sell the war. The real theory of the conflict was going to be that it would repeat South Ossetia / Abkhazia and Crimea. A rapid land grab intended to incorporate a heavily pro-Russia border territory that wouldn't escalate for fear of reprisal.
  What Russia got was an enormous escalation (fueled by NATO) and a protracted conflict. But the conflict didn't benefit Ukraine, for the same reason an armed revolt in Crimea or Georgia wouldn't have benefited either of those territories. All it produced was a new Chechnya / Afghanistan. A killing field that obliterated the accumulated wealth of generations and the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Nobody is coming out of this ahead.
Russia hasn’t seized those materials yet and they still believe they can so the war will continue.
- Funny way of going about it, given that they've offered terns of peace every few months and negotiated a ceasefire that the US and its vassal the UK vetoed (hmmm 🤔) a few months in.
  Quote:
  When we returned from Istanbul, [then-British Prime Minister] Boris Johnson came to Kiev and said: ‘Do not sign anything with them at all; just go to war,’” Arakhamia said.
  Rather than report [the real demands] to the public, however, the media in Europe and the U.S. focused on sensational statements that were not actually part of those negotiations.
  
  Do you have a less biased source? People’s world will default to the anti-western position.

One of the reasons, others include vengenance over Ukrainians throwing out his puppet from the government, insane conspiracy theories about Lenin creating the Ukrainian nation, etc.

No, Russia stated that NATO membership for Ukraine was a red line, so their goal is to either prevent membership or demillitarize Ukraine entirely, and they have the means and will to continue until those objectives are met. That's really all it boils down to.

The Kremlin says whatever suits its needs at any given moment. Of course, they've called NATO membership for Ukraine a "red line"—just as they've claimed Ukraine is full of Nazis, that the U.S. started the war, and that up is down and red is blue.
Putin lies with every word he speaks. His statements are meaningless; his actions tell the real story. He is an imperialist obsessed with his own legacy, determined to be remembered as one of Russia’s greatest leaders. His ambitions are monstrous, and he will stop at nothing—no matter the cost in human lives—to achieve them.
- Russia/NATO relations predate the Russian Federation's existence.
This all starts when it becomes clear Ukraine has mineral rights that threaten Russia's ability to lean on Western Europe to the extent it does/did.
The NATO claims are just cover. Even if they were true Russia has zero right to determine Ukraine's future.
It's weird to see "leftists" endorse imperialism while attempting to claim any kind of morality.
- It’s weird to see “leftists” endorse imperialism
  Leftist: "Damn, this war is killing so many people and wasting so many natural resources. Everything in the region is getting worse the longer it drags on. It needs to stop."
  Radical Centrist: "You only want to stop the war because you love Hitler."
  Leftist: "Also, Israel needs to stop bombing Gaza."
  Radical Centrist: "More antisemitism! You're only proving my point."
  Leftist: "War is Bad."
  Radical Centrist: "Just what a Fascist would say."
  
  Your reply is a straw man.
- No, it started a lot longer ago than that. Russia has maintained for decades now that NATO encirclement is a red line, and that included Ukraine. I'm not "endorsing" anything here, but explaining the cause of the war. Russia is interested in having a buffer zone against NATO, the US is interested in profiteering in the form of loans and mineral rights, and the ruling class of Ukraine is interested in gettting rich off of sending young people to die in a preventable war.
  This isn't a war of "righteousness" or anything, it isn't good vs evil, but 3 countries with different interests and the Ukrainian people ending up with by far the shortest end of the stick.
  
  No, it started a lot longer ago than that
  You can listen to Putin himself and he goes back pretty far in history.
  
  I could, but I think it's more important to look at what's actually truly relevant. NATO/Russian relations don't go nearly that far back.
  
  Putin is the Czar. What's on his matters most. Everything else is secondary or incidental.
  
  Regardless of what Putin personally wants, Russia acts in the interests of its material conditions. Putin is a Nationalist, so his interests in maintaining a buffer from NATO generally align with the Russian public.
  
  acts in the interests of its material conditions
  It's a foundational mistake of Marxists to reduce everything to material conditions. You will never understand the world, if that's your only frame of reference.
  
  I don't reduce everything to material conditions, but I also don't believe in "Great Man Theory" either.
  
  To be clear Im talking about many of the other leftists that are celebrating Putin's invasions/actions not just you specifically
  Russia has no right to demand a buffer zone and they have had plans to retake Ukraine for years as you always had that cadre of nutjobs going back to Zhirinovsky that would comment on the need to rebuild the empire. I believe they just found the right circumstances to take advantage of the situation.
  No war is about morality and the only side with anything resembling a moral claim at all are those invaded.
  
  I don't see what discussing the morality of the invasion will practically solve, nor the insistence on Russia not actually caring about NATO and instead wanting minerals. The reason it's important to accurately identify the cause of war is so that we can find a way to end it with the least harm possible, as it stands right now Ukraine is getting the rug pulled from under them and will be subject to US loans and Russian victory, the worst outcome for them, period.
  
  Im not saying Russia doesn’t care about NATO. I have stated that it does not matter what Russia’s position is as they have no right to determine what Ukraine does despite the intense entitlement throughout Russia
  
  You said it was a cover in order to grab minerals in Ukraine. I disagree, and that fundamentally changes how we analyze how to end the war.

Unlikely. There are and where good economic and political reasons for the war.

The blossoming democracy, freedom and wealth in Ukraine are dangerous to the stability of Russia. They show what could have been.

The annexation of crimes did bring ports to further Russia's imperial ambition. The agricultural land is of high quality and will secure Russia's role as a resource exporter after the phase out of fossils. You also need to keep in mind that siberia's agricultural output is severely at risk from climate change. Ukraine had impressive heavy industry. They took transit tolls for Russian gas which could be saved.

lmfao did you just say Ukraine was blossoming democracy 🤣
- real democracy is when all power is concentrated in one person who rules for 20+ years at a time and criticizing him is highly correlated with falling out of a window. There is absolutely no possible nuance.
  
  I believe this is what's called whataboutism in liberal parlance
  
  what is relevant is the difference exists, and is a trend that can easily be extrapolated into "blossoming democracy", especially in the minds of the russian people.
  
  What is relevant is that you made a non sequitur here. However, the actual difference that exists is that Putin actually won elections and has popular support in Russia. Meanwhile, western puppet in Ukraine cancelled elections for obvious reasons. Try to put a bit more work into your trolling to make it less obvious.
  
  Your unwillingness to understand does not a non sequitur make.
  
  Nah, I understand that you're doing trolling here perfectly well, as does everybody reading this thread.
  
  disagreeing with a bunch of delusional tankies is not the same thing as trolling, and I think somewhere deep down you know that.
  That you've successfully driven away 99% of people who disagree with you does not make you any more correct.
  
  All I know is that you're a clown making statements that are at odds with reality. I think deep down even you know that.
  
  I wouldn't bother too much, he's not arguing in good faith. He's just a Russian nationalist pretending to be a campist. Capitalist imperialism is a disease and needs to be stomped out.....except for in Russia, which is totally going to be socialist any day now.