To be America's enemy is dangerous, but to be its ally is fatal
To be America's enemy is dangerous, but to be its ally is fatal
You're viewing a single thread.
Isn't that exactly why Russia invaded to begin with, to steal minerals?
No, it was because they didn't want a bordering nation to join a hostile military alliance.
And oil
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.
Still looking for a valid source on your claim...
They're quoting people who were at the negotiations and when Johnson vetoed the deal, evidence doesn't become more true or less true because it's posted by a billionaire's paper.
But if you like, you can pretend NBC quoted an anonymous source who said it. Or just look for Arakhamia+"do not sign anything with them" and do your own cross referencing instead of sealioning.
And Im asking for you to establish that those quotes are legitimate by backing them with a source that theoretically does not have a built in bias.
Im asking for you to back your claim with a more valid source because People’s World is equivalent to Fox Cable News when it comes to built in bias
All sources have a built in bias jfc. If you think you've seen an unbiased source that just means you're not self aware enough to recognize that it's just your bias
Yes but your source has an inherent bias against the subjects they are talking about.
Im looking for you to provide someone that backs your claim that isn’t anti-Western. If you claim has validity you should be able to find an less biased source or at least one that isn’t inherently biased against the West.
Do you have a less biased source? People’s world will default to the anti-western position.
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.
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.
Why do you think that what Russia says is true?
Russia said they didn't poison Alexei Navalny in 2020, but they did. They said they didn't kill Alexander Litvinenko, and they said they didn't poison Sergei Skripal, but they did both of those things.
I trust Occam's Razor, this is consistent with what has happened in the past regarding Russia/NATO relations since NATO's formation as an anticommunist millitary alliance against the USSR, a history continued into the modern Russian Federation even after the adoption of Capitalism.
Occam's razor would dictate that Russia is probably lying if they say they're not interested in Ukrainian minerals, given that the Kremlin has lied about pretty much everything for a long time.
Putin is even saying he wants to sell minerals from Russian-occupied Ukraine to the US. Clearly he wants to profit from minerals in Ukraine.
You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, right? Why do you believe Putin when he says he wants to profit from minerals in Ukraine? Wouldn't your belief in Russia as only lying mean that he actually doesn't want to sell Ukrainian minerals to the US?
Russia can and does lie. It also tells the truth. Analyzing historical trends and motivations is important for figuring out what is actually going on, rather than just assuming the opposite of whatever Russia says. That's not Occam's Razor, that's analytical nihilism.
I didn't say Russian only lies. I said Russia "has lied about pretty much everything for a long time". That is not the same thing.
assuming the opposite of whatever Russia says
I'm not just assuming the opposite of Russia's statements. I'm drawing a best guess conclusion based on two premises:
- Russia has a history of lying about its true intentions and actions
- Russian oligarchs and elites would absolutely be interested in mineral wealth, given their history of megalomania
I think it's likely that mineral wealth would have been part of the Kremlin's motivation to invade. Along with general megalomania and irredentism.
Certainly you can see how the statement that "Russia has lied about pretty much everything" can be seen as "Russia always lies," right?
Either way, I still don't see why NATO expansionism would not be the primary factor, given that that has been a huge part of Russian geopolitics since back when they were still Socialist. Mineral access could be a secondary factor, but that doesn't explain minerals being absent from the peace deal proposed by Russia near the beginning of the war, which instead focused on NATO.
It seems more likely that as Ukraine and the US rejected the Russian-proposed peace deals, Russia has seen that as an additional opportunity to recoup some of the cost of the war through going for minerals as a secondary objective.
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.
It's hilarious that you accuse the US and Ukraine of wanting to get rich from mineral rights, but you won't accuse Russia of the same thing. In reality there will be rich people in each of those countries wanting to profit from minerals.
Sure, there are likely people in Russia that want access to Ukrainian minerals, but that certainly doesn't seem to be the primary cause of the invasion to begin with.
Maybe the primary cause was Putin's megalomania, or indeed megalomania among quite a few Russian elites.
I don't believe in "Great Man Theory" as a useful method of analysis of historical trends. Material conditions and political economic factors play a far greater role in historical events than the individual whims of leaders.
I don't think it's just Putin which is why I mentioned the megalomania of other Russian elites. But Putin surely made the final decision to invade.
Believing history to be driven by the egos of a few individuals and divorcing it entirely from materialist analysis is Great Man Theory, though. Ego may have played a small factor, but certainly not the driving force.
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.
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.
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.
Of course, Russia/NATO relations predate the Russian Federation—just as imperialist ambitions in Russia predate Putin. But history isn't an excuse for present-day aggression. Whatever the past, the reality now is that Putin's actions are not about NATO; they are about control, power, and his own legacy. He isn't reacting to a genuine security threat—he is manufacturing one to justify his war.
NATO expansion didn’t force Russia to invade Ukraine. Ukraine wasn’t on the verge of joining NATO when the full-scale invasion began. Putin made that decision because he saw Ukraine slipping out of his influence, not because of any immediate NATO threat. His goal isn't just to stop NATO expansion; it's to erase Ukrainian sovereignty entirely.
Do you have anything to back that up, or is it just vibes? You can dislike or hate Putin while also believing that Occam's Razor applies, and having a hostile Millitary Alliance on Russia's doorstep could be seen as aggression by NATO towards Russia from the Russian POV.
I get what you're saying about perspectives, and I’ll take your question in good faith. Let’s establish some key points:
NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO’s founding principle is collective defense—Article 5 states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. However, NATO has never preemptively attacked Russia or any other non-member state. The only time Article 5 has ever been invoked was after 9/11.
If NATO were aggressive, we’d have seen it by now. NATO expanded eastward because former Soviet-controlled states wanted to join. If NATO were truly a threat to Russia’s existence, why hasn’t it attacked Russia in the 30+ years since the USSR collapsed? There have been countless opportunities if that were NATO’s intent. But that’s not what has happened—because NATO isn’t an offensive force.
Putin’s “perspective” is selective and self-serving. Russia itself has attacked multiple neighboring countries—Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine (multiple times), and intervened in Syria. Meanwhile, NATO has not attacked Russian territory, nor has it forced any nation to join. So when Putin claims NATO is the aggressor, he is projecting—using the idea of a NATO "threat" as an excuse to justify his own expansionist wars.
Putin doesn’t recognize Ukraine as a real country. He has said outright that Ukrainians and Russians are "one people" and that Ukraine exists only because of Soviet mistakes. That isn’t about NATO—it’s about his imperial ambitions. If NATO weren’t the excuse, he’d find another one.
So yes, Russia might perceive NATO as aggressive, but that doesn’t make it true. A defensive alliance accepting new members isn’t aggression. An authoritarian leader launching wars to reclaim "lost" lands is.
NATO is a millitary alliance of Imperialist states formed directly to exert pressure on the USSR, and now retains that hostile history with the current Russian Federation. It was led by Nazis including Adolf Heusinger and has performed hostile, anticommunist terrorist operations such as Operation Gladio in order to combat Communism and exert power to maintain Imperialism.
Your analysis of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is purely a character analysis of Putin, and not the legitimate material interests of all countries involved. This form of "Great Man Theory" is genuinely a myopic form of geopolitical analysis that rarely gets at the truth behind why events happen, and instead decides to look at history as though it's the whims of a few individuals and not the billions of regular people.
I see where you’re coming from, and I’ll acknowledge that NATO’s history isn’t without controversy. The Cold War era was full of power struggles, covert operations, and actions taken under the banner of anti-communism that are fair to criticize. But historical context doesn’t automatically determine present reality. The NATO of today is not the NATO of 1950, and treating it as if it is ignores how global politics have evolved.
Yes, NATO was formed as a counter to the USSR, but alliances don’t exist in a vacuum—they evolve based on the actions of those they were meant to counter. Russia is not the Soviet Union, but Putin’s government has actively revived expansionist policies that threaten its neighbors. That isn’t just Western propaganda—ask the people of Ukraine, Georgia, or Chechnya.
More importantly, focusing on NATO as the reason for Russia’s invasion ignores a fundamental fact: Ukraine wanted to join NATO precisely because of Russia’s aggression. Ukraine’s sovereignty isn’t just a chess piece in some imperialist struggle—it’s a real country making real choices based on real threats. If this were purely a matter of NATO’s existence, why did Russia invade Ukraine in 2014, long before any serious NATO membership talks?
As for “Great Man Theory,” I agree that geopolitics isn’t just about individual leaders. But ignoring Putin’s role entirely is just as simplistic. Leaders shape policy, especially in authoritarian states like Russia, where power is heavily centralized. Putin isn’t acting alone, but his worldview—his obsession with restoring Russia’s sphere of influence, his belief that Ukraine isn’t a real country, his willingness to use force to achieve his goals—does matter. Dismissing that as just “character analysis” misses the material reality that his decisions are shaping the lives of millions.
So while I respect the historical perspective, I think the argument that NATO is the primary driver of this war is flawed. Ukraine wasn’t forced into conflict by some Western plot—it was attacked by a neighboring country that refuses to accept its independence. That’s not imperialist propaganda. That’s just reality.
You're conveniently ignoring Euromaidan, the fallout of it, and the entire nearly 4 decades of incredibly complicated fallout from the dissolution of the USSR.
Putin has input, sure. However, his actions have popular support among Russians because the invasion has material reasons for happening, not just the whims of a leader.
I’m not ignoring Euromaidan or the broader post-Soviet fallout—I just don’t think they justify Russia’s actions. If anything, they reinforce my argument.
Euromaidan wasn’t some Western-orchestrated coup; it was a mass uprising driven by Ukrainians rejecting a corrupt, Russia-aligned government that tried to back out of closer ties with the EU. The response? Russia annexed Crimea and fueled a separatist war in Donbas. That wasn’t some inevitable “material consequence” of Soviet dissolution—it was a calculated move to punish Ukraine for stepping out of Russia’s shadow.
Yes, many Russians support the war—but why? Because Putin controls the media, suppresses opposition, and jails or kills dissenters. When you control the narrative, you control public opinion. That doesn’t make the war justified—it just means propaganda works. The idea that Russia had to invade due to “material reasons” falls apart when you consider that no actual threat existed. NATO wasn’t invading. Ukraine wasn’t attacking Russia. The only “threat” was Ukraine choosing its own path, and Putin couldn’t tolerate that.
Putin’s actions tell the real story. He has repeatedly stated that Ukraine is not a real country and that its independence was a mistake. That isn’t about NATO. That isn’t about self-defense. That’s about control. If NATO weren’t the excuse, something else would be.
You’re right that history is complicated—but some things are simple. Invading a sovereign nation because you don’t like its direction isn’t a “material necessity.” It’s imperialism.