Latest Ukraine/Russia Thread

[PurpleTree]

Russians are so weird bruv

i often see them while travelling.

Like right now.

I mean not all of course but many if not most. Especially some women are ok like i met a really lovely Russian woman in Jerusalem once but i think she didn’t like Russia.

Also India hotel owner before the war told me he doesn’t like Russians but he mostly likes west euros.

Egyptian driver also told me he doesn’t like Russian tourists.

Rich Russians treat staff like slaves and poorer Russians are cray cray

Edited September 9 by PurpleTree

[PurpleTree]

here’s a russian song though 

[PurpleTree]

8 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

Russians weird bruv

Now a russian just came and asked me for the wifi password.

I almost said slava ukraina but i kept it together.

[BlueOak]

Russia attacks Poland, as usual. Same pattern on repeat.
 

I'll respond to you Zazen tomorrow.

Edited Wednesday at 07:46 AM by BlueOak

[zazen]

On 08/09/2025 at 4:38 PM, Daniel Balan said:

Bro yesterday I put my critique of you in claude ai and I asked it to give a rebuttal to it, and your response today is almost the same as the rebbutal that Claude made. 

This is hilarious. 

I am not intending to do rebuttals to your posts, I'm not the west's guard dog. I don't advocate for the push of western ideals on China. My sole position is that I don't want bullshit authoritarian governance models pushed onto the west. Which is what you subtly advocate. 

Bro the reason you think everything I write is AI is perhaps because you don't think its possible to come up with those takes yourself - so maybe your just projecting here. Maybe that's why you don't want to rebuttal or discuss the points further - but I'm saying why not use AI yourself to do so and maybe you'll learn more through using it too. I actually often edit a lot of my comments because I see unclear writing or bad grammar - if I was straight copy pasting from AI I it wouldn't have those mistakes. Anyway on to your point:

The fear of authoritarianism is valid -  I also don't want it.  The issue is what is authoritarianism and what is simply greater authority or centralized governance that gets conflated with it. Me criticizing democracy or liberalism isn't me subtly advocating for authoritarianism either. I'm all for more a honest, competent authority that serves the people - we actually need more bolder leadership in the West.

I think theirs a place for strategic centralization that isn't disrupted by election cycles and which prevents long term planning - because in order to compete with China and others, long term plans are needed.  That's why deep states exist to such a degree in Western democracies - because the surface level state will keep getting in the way. But that then creates special interests doing whats good for themselves rather than the national interest. It becomes a false or weak democracy with real technocracy and oligarchy.

Western democracies often hide or obscure centralized power behind democratic optics - because Western culture and liberalism have placed such primacy on individualism and democracy that the people are culturally conditioned to go against anything that is beyond their own democratic reach. Imposing top down control, policies or values on societies conditioned to believe they have total democratic control only creates mistrust and backlash. That forces power to hide behind and beyond the ballot box. That power can then easily become corrupted by elites that remain invisible or unaccountable.

On the other hand China's centralized system seems to be working better perhaps because it's more honest about what it is, more culturally accepted by its people, more aligned with its national interest (rather than private or international interests), and is transparent about who is running the show - still not without its flaws. Centralization seems to only work when when it’s honest, aligned, and built for the nation. It fails when it’s hidden or opaque, hijacked by private interests, or pretending to be something it’s not which causes trust issues.

Also, China and Russia aren't pushing authoritarianism onto the West - it's been the West that has been pushing its political system and ideals on to the world. Authoritarianism doesn't need to be pushed onto a country - it can just as well be democratically voted in, or arise from internal conditions in a country. The issue in the West is much of the domestic and foreign policy of the liberally detached elite have fanned the flames and set the conditions of the far right rising in their own countries. We've discussed this before on another thread you started where we talked about EU policies being good or bad:

On 29/05/2025 at 1:11 AM, Leo Gura said:

It's a big deal since Europe will fall behind in the AI race and become poor, which will lead to fascist movements.

Europe needs to be technologically and economically competitive, not just stagnant wellfare states. Europe needs to compete with China's rapid development.

 

On 29/05/2025 at 11:32 AM, zazen said:

The thing is one policy may be good for one country while not so good for another as each country has different strengths and weaknesses. Germany who has a low unemployment rate vs Spain who has a very high one will naturally differ on what policies would suit them. Spain and Greece have higher youth unemployment than Mongolia and some African countries - they naturally would need a different approach and to use different tools but don't have the autonomy for it within the EU.

That was the traditional tension in the EU - between Northern taxpayer countries vs Southern debtors countries - with blame games over who is lazy etc. But now there's also a tension between the East and West which is more political / cultural. rather than economic. The supranational entity (EU) wants to impose more liberal values on more conservative nations in the East.

You ask if your relatives are being truthful about Germany's de-industrialization, you should google it and check the many articles tracking it.

What made the EU work post WW2 was that it was a empire of access - to cheap energy from the East and to the largest consumer market in the West (US). It was the bridge, but that bride is crumbling from both ends. Russian energy is offline which drives energy costs up = less industry = less competitiveness. And the US is leaning into the tariff game making good less competitive to sell to the largest consumer market.

That input - output equation has been disrupted. Which requires adaptability  = which internal bureaucracy, fragmented political will, and overregulation get in the way of. Europe is anchored in its past, paralyzed in its present, and becoming irrelevant to the future - it needs to do something real quick.

The EU's institutions are designed to prevent war and constrain power, not to pinnovation or agility. It celebrates historical achievements and moral postures, but struggles to let go of outdated frameworks. Too much memory and inertia, not enough momentum and inovation.

Future power and prosperity will be decided by technology - they need to double, triple, 10x down on it like yesterday. Only innovations can help plug the gaps it has.

You then said you don't like the conservatism of Eastern Europe. But the issue is you can't impose liberalism from the top down (as I mentioned earlier) - it needs to come organically. Otherwise that's the very issue causing the backlash and rise of the right - bad policy that is blind to the ground reality.

When the political and economic elite gut out your industry for globalized profits (special interests vs national interest) and then flood in migration to help boos domestic demand, property prices and labor shortages that rapidly change the culture of the country - of course people will backlash. The same conditions that gave rise to Hitler - cultural humiliation and economic hardship. 

On 29/05/2025 at 0:20 PM, zazen said:

@Daniel Balan  Yeah, its a tricky one as that process of being more liberal needs to come more organically from the ground up.

Leo is spot on where he speaks on what you fear - which is the rise of right wing facism/nationalism. I think there is one advantage Europe has which is its silver lining.

If economic disenfranchisement fuels facism - then to keep facism at bay requires economic inclusion.

The reason facism is rising in USA despite the USA leading in technology (and economically) is because the gains made by technology aren't re-distributed across the society but are instead accumulated at the top.

Unlike the US where redistribution is viewed with suspicion and the state is expected to step back, Europe is much more culturally comfortable with the idea that the state has a moral role.

If the EU can catch up in innovation while using its already existing mechanisms to equitably distribute the benefits, it would preserve and even enhance what it’s best known for which is a high quality of life.

The US excels at creating wealth but fails at sharing it. The EU shares better but struggles to generate as much. China forces the balance through command and control - which is why they are going to win the future and why the US is panicking now.

Look back at our conversation in that thread and see everything that has transpired since - the tension is between national interest vs private / transnational interests.

Even look at whats happening now with France (vote of no confidence and mass protests right now) and the UK with migrant protests and a new all time low approval rating for Keir Starmer of 22% (this is only within months of him being ''democratically voted'' in). How is that democracy working well - and the real question is why isn’t it working well? Which my above points partially cover.

Edited Wednesday at 11:17 AM by zazen

[Ajay0]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/sep/10/poland-pm-condemns-repeated-violation-of-airspace-amid-russian-attack-on-ukraine-follow-live

The two world wars which originated in europe based on military alliances killed over a hundred million people back then.

By some major coincidence this new european war, also based on military alliance of NATO, has  the potential of becoming a world record third world war originating in europe. Hopefully the Guinness book of records will note this extraordinary feat.

Wonder how many millions will die this time around !

[Daniel Balan]

@zazen elections and democracy are the best tool for advancing society because people vote out of office the ones that govern badly and worsen their quality of life. In China and Russia you don't even know what the people actually think about the current governance. Protests and votes of no confidence are a sign that democracy is working. Lack of protests, bruttal crushing of public revolt is what actually sets back a society. In the dictatorships of Russia and China that you so much seem to love, you don't even know what is actually happening there. All you know is what the propaganda machine of Putin and of the communist party in China want you to know. Western democracies have their flaws so obviously displayed because in the west no government has a monopoly on information and no government creates non stop propaganda about how good the country runs. 

Russia is the worst form of governance that a country can have. I genuinely think that there isn't a single good thing that the west can learn from the form of government that Russia under Putin has. 

China has a lot of positive aspects that we can integrate in the west, it is a mistake to totally dismiss China's way of governance. Overall China has developed a lot, but so did Taiwan and Japan and South Korea. So to praise centralized economy as the only driving factor for economic improvement is quite a partisan thing to do. 

The reason I don't want to do rebutalls and to debate you is because you have some unique semi-Duginesque ideology that I am not here to challenge. No ammount of debating and rebuttal can get you to step out of that "4th way" of viewing politics. Nor should you step out of it per se. It is a good thing for this forum to have a pool of diverse unique perspectives. My main issue with you is the bias and the one sidedness of your arguments. If you look at how Leo is approaching geopolitics you would notice that he has like 15 lenses that he uses to see how geopolitics work. If he is doing a blog post critiquing China, he is also keen to praise the positive aspects of China. So when he critiques the west. 

I've watched a lot of your posts and frankly you sound exactly like the people that appear on the far right propaganda tv outlet in my country. Only shitting on the west and praising China and the authoritarian world. Shitting on Ukraine all day long, wanting Ukraine to surrender to Putin, while they pump their chest saying that they are patriots. How are you patriot if you want another sovereign country to become the vassal of Russia? 

As I said previously, I will take you seriously when I will see from you that you also criticise the authoritarian world. Right now you only shit all day long on Ukraine and the west, how about you also start shitting on Russia and China and the rest of the "Centralized planned economies".

Have a nice day.

[Daniel Balan]

@zazen I have a friend that moved to China because he married a girl from China. He met her when he was studying abroad in the US. And he said that the people in China are extremely smart and hard working, he said that the culture is great, he said that everything about China is great except the way how everything is centralized, the censorship, the dictatorship and the one party rule, and the non stop state sponsored propaganda that is displayed non stop everywhere.

So according to my friend, China's only downside is exactly the very thing that you seem to be head over heels in love with. 

Edited Wednesday at 11:44 AM by Daniel Balan

[zazen]

7 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

Russia is the worst form of governance that a country can have. I genuinely think that there isn't a single good thing that the west can learn from the form of government that Russia under Putin has. 

I agree - where have I praised their internal governance and development?

7 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

My main issue with you is the bias and the one sidedness of your arguments.

7 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

Only shitting on the west and praising China and the authoritarian world.

Again you conflate critique with shitting on - and conclude I'm praising the authoritarian world. I would praise the downfall of Western imperialism - but that's not the same as praising the systems or leaders who have done so.

The Western led order is the largest imperial offender on the planet so that's naturally where my focus goes. I don't have time to spend writing back and forth all day long on ''flaws of internal political systems''. That's also why I'm barely on other sides of the forum like dating etc because I like the big picture - geo-politics and the shifting world order, of which Israel and Ukraine relate to also.

The downsides of tyranny, dictators and communism are pretty evident so don't have to be commented on. Most of us on the forum are Western and liberal minded already so what perhaps is overlooked are the flaws within liberalism - including the Western order we are part of.

What should be and is discussed is stopping the conditions that give rise to populism, fascism etc. Part of what's given rise are the blindspots within liberalism. Me bringing those blindspots into light is conflated with me loving authoritarianism though.

7 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

Shitting on Ukraine all day long, wanting Ukraine to surrender to Putin, while they pump their chest saying that they are patriots. How are you patriot if you want another sovereign country to become the vassal of Russia? 

I'd like Europe as a whole not be vassal to the US and be a pawn in a larger game of empire - including Ukraine itself. To increase European sovereignty or as they say ''strategic autonomy''  requires intelligence, foresight, courage and not having ideological blinkers on. It also unfortunately means cutting losses now and building up your strength and sovereignty as to not get caught up in that mess.

This is what Merz said just a few days ago: 

"We are currently unable to exert sufficient pressure on [Russian President Vladimir] Putin to end this war," he said. "We are dependent on American help."  https://www.dw.com/en/germany-updates-merz-urges-stronger-european-role-in-global-affairs/live-73889023

Is it patriotic to encourage a Chihuahua to fight a pitbull?  Are you gonna spill blood and money for Ukraine? If not then respectfully don't push others to die for your Russiphobia or wet dream of containing Russia. 

You want Europe to kick Russia's ass and take that Ukrainian land back right? Okay, with what arms, manpower and funding? Western establishment outlets themselves highlight the stockpile shortages, being out produced by Russia in arms, and the struggling manpower issue in Ukraine. France and UK are on the precipice of a debt crises as we speak and Germany's de-industrializing.

If you aren't gonna go die on the front line or give up money to the cause then stop raging war with Russia thinking its some easy feat to defeat them that you or I won't suffer consequences for. Actual Ukrainians are dying on the front line for a larger geopolitical game between two powers and you know that.

I'm saying get real about the situation. Address security concerns and establish peace. Get real about Europe's geopolitical standing and it strength and weaknesses - and make decisions based on that, not on some liberal moralistic delusions not based in reality.

 You want to prevent far right populism rising in Europe? Okay, well how do we stop economic inequality getting worse, on top of excessive migration and lack of assimilation of current migration that will cause native people to revolt and elect a new Hitler? You think Europe freezing its relations with Russia including its cheap energy access that supported it all these decades - to in turn get much more expensive energy from the US - will help Europes economic competitiveness on the world stage which requires it to now compete with China?  That's economic seppuku that will only ripen the conditions for populism and fascism.

7 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

I have a friend that moved to China because he married a girl from China. He met her when he was studying abroad in the US. And he said that the people in China are extremely smart and hard working, he said that the culture is great, he said that everything about China is great except the way how everything is centralized, the censorship, the dictatorship and the one party rule, and the non stop state sponsored propaganda that is displayed non stop everywhere.

So according to my friend, China's only downside is exactly the very thing that you seem to be head over heels in love with. 

I assume your friend is more liberal like yourself, or Western? It makes sense that someone coming from a different culture would view China’s centralization as a big downside - as I said in my previous comment: the cultural conditioning is there to view it as such.

It's worth asking if the things he praises are also made possible by that same structure. Every system has trade offs. In China, centralization brings real limits on freedoms, but it also channels collective effort in a way that produces stability and progress. Perhaps the Chinese people value sacrificing lower freedoms for higher freedoms of stability, harmony and saftey.

It's like libertarians who view every constraint on freedom as tyranny, but underappreciated that those restraints (laws) are allowing them to exist in a more stable society that allows them other freedoms and luxuries - the kind your friend may be praising.

7 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

China has a lot of positive aspects that we can integrate in the west, it is a mistake to totally dismiss China's way of governance. Overall China has developed a lot, but so did Taiwan and Japan and South Korea. So to praise centralized economy as the only driving factor for economic improvement is quite a partisan thing to do. 

Agree - centralization isn't the only piece or model that can produce good outcomes. China's system isn't the only cause of its success - its a enabler of the peoples efforts. It's ultimately down to quality decisions made over a long enough time period - that ultimately boils down to quality people making such decisions - and a strong culture that values hard work, discipline, pragmatism etc. 

Japan and South Korea are allies with the US. They aren't viewed as threats the same way Russia or China are - and they aren't large or sovereign enough to be considered geopolitical rivals. So China exists in a different geopolitical reality than most countries.

If China were to open up and become democratic - that would mean opening up to foreign interference, regime change and color revolutions that the West, particularly the US have perfected. The US has every incentive to destabilize it if given the chance - and liberalizing politically would give them more tools and access points to do that. If you look into the recent protests in Thailand, Indonesia and now the very violent uprising in Nepal - you'll find US funded NGO's tracing to the movements that have kicked such things off.

Imagine if you were the leader of a great civilization with over a 1 billion people such as China - you have to provide stability and progress to these people - and you see a imperial actor like the US who has a open track record of regime changes across the world, who openly wishes to contain your rise and your peoples - would you simply sit there and liberally open up your country in a such a way as to allow those same actors to fuck up you and your peoples trajectory? Or would centralizing and controlling the information / political space be seen as a lesser evil for the greater freedom of even being able to exist as a rival super power?

 

Edited Wednesday at 07:10 PM by zazen

[zazen]

3 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

As I said previously, I will take you seriously when I will see from you that you also criticise the authoritarian world. Right now you only shit all day long on Ukraine and the west, how about you also start shitting on Russia and China and the rest of the "Centralized planned economies".

Have done so before. Have a good day too. 

On 10/21/2024 at 11:25 AM, zazen said:

@Bobby_2021  Leo's reasoning is sound in that if a country expropriates foreign assets this can expect a response as it violates property rights and global norms. Whats understandable is that countries want to achieve economic sovereignty and weaken imperialistic chains, but how they do so can back fire. If done so in a revolutionary way rather than a gradual way through buy outs, partnership etc this causes back lash and capital flight - because why would anyone want to invest in a country that could just seize your investment (to nationalize it) without compensation.

Related to above, the issue is that the process involves theft when it wants to transition to communism - which is un-ethical and assumes that the elites who got rich through capitalist elements will voluntarily give up their wealth for a communist utopia.

But lets say they do. The problem then is that communism assumes the wealth it takes which was built off of capitalist mechanisms can then be sustained without those mechanisms. In simple terms, if capitalism is good at growing the pie, and communism divides the pie - how does it replenish the pie?  Wealth isn't static, once the pie is eaten its eaten. Communism fails at making pies and growing them due to lack of innovation and incentives.

Where Marx is right is that capitalism comes before communism, because Communism first needs something to re-distribute in the first place. But he shouldn't stop there - how does it then maintain there's something to be continuously re-distributed when you get rid of the mechanism that creates things to re-distribute. Once the pie runs out, another revolution will occur, capitalism will come back, and communists will say lets try again because the last time we didn't implement it properly.

Communism can work in a tribal settings but is much harder at scale where communal ties barely exist. But technological advancements could help resolve a lot of the issues. If work can be automated with AI and robots then we don't have to worry about incentives to motivate people to produce. Big data can be analyzed with AI to not mis-allocate resources and plug inefficiencies caused by central planning trying to manage such complexities. Blockchain and decentralization can help things not be authoritarian.

 

[BlueOak]

@zazen
1, What is a sphere?

Spheres do not require nationalism, nor violence, nor a military. Its consent vs coercion. Spheres can be cultural, military, religious or trade. Countries' elites and populations preferred the EU sphere. Iran's religious and cultural sphere is very strong, for example. The EU is an international power. Its sphere of influence is massive. That’s what Russia fears at its core, the democratic values of the countries, the quality of life offered by those inside of it. Because it would have changed their country without firing a shot. Now the US is going more authoritarian, the EU is distancing itself more from it naturally.

No blood was spilt over Brexit because it’s a bureaucratic effort to maintain peace. That peace and democratic progress is its sphere. Plenty of fallout happens, bureaucratic and trade, as is its nature.

2) Europe’s Core

Europe isn’t a single state, it’s a compound core. Single market, heavy on interdependence, it converts zero-sum rivalries into positive-sum gains. Which is why it's far superior to the old uni-polar model. This is part of your bias to try and play down what Europe is, to try and fragment it into a singular military framing. - Which negates a lot of Chinese, Russian or Indian power or influence also btw.

But, what Russia has done is force the EU to project a military sphere. And that should worry everyone. Especially Russia. The latest 23 drones and missile attack on Poland, and now Russia simulating its military exercise to invade Poland, has caused them to shut their borders, erect a no-fly zone and put 40,000 of their troops on the border.

That projects a military sphere, a very specific one. Poland's GDP and military alone would beat or hold Russia in a conventional war.
 

3) Security

Outsourcing security to the US again wasn’t vassalage, because power isn’t just in the guns you have on hand. It was risk sharing, and a good way to ensure peace over the continent. However, Russia and BRICS require military deterrence; that’s obvious now and energy independence. - Again though, it won't stop at deterrence,  GDP isn't put into something and not used.

4) “Russia reacts; the West provokes”

This one’s Chat GPT quoted from an earlier convo, as it says what i've said before.

Great powers push back when encircled. But structure doesn’t erase choice. Moscow had multiple coercive and diplomatic tools short of invasion (energy leverage, information ops, targeted sanctions via EEU/CSTO leverage, etc.). It chose maximalist war aims early, then adjusted under constraint. That’s not “forced by geography”; it’s strategy under agency.

Also: if we grant Russia structural insecurity, we must also grant Eastern Europeans structural insecurity vis-à-vis Russia. Their remedy was NATO. You cannot validate one set of fears and delegitimize the other.

End Quote

5, Russia vs NATO

As I’ve often said zazen. It won’t be Russia fighting NATO, it’ll be BRICS on China’s say so. Russia uses mass and can take the areas it needs to, to cut off the Baltics, just due to it being a very small area that can be attacked from two (actually three) directions. BRICS has the ability to supply manpower and material indefinitely. While tactical nukes (not strategic, tactical) may be common in such a fight to counter manpower, they can just send men indefinitely.

If he thinks he can win, Putin will try, even if it takes another 10 years. Our populations are already war-fatigued. I suppose Russia’s is also, the difference is Putin doesn’t care or need to care. Time doesn't seem to bother him.

Oh and BTW Russia just threatened war with Poland unless it opens its border. Putin has stated that Russia's borders "don't end anywhere”. I mean, I can just keep showing you whats going on and quoting him forever.

However, this could just be a clever way to force NATO to divert supplies to another frontline that isn't Ukraine.

6, Spheres aren’t fated to happen.

Security threats from Russia outweight economic and cultural ties. Its something you and Russia both won't give weight to. If you could, you’d frame all of this differently. Sweden was a very neutral country, Finland preferred neutrality, etc.

 7, This is the EU sphere happening in front of your eyes.

As America goes more authoritarian, both the EU and the USA are drifting apart. America for example, is no longer calling the attack on Poland an attack. This is forcing Poland to stand up to Russia and the EU to back it.

Its not America vs Russia, its Poland  vs Russia, Ukraine vs Russia, the EU vs Russia. Russia’s influence will not extend into Poland, Romania or the Baltics, that’s a red line for Europe, not America, and that’s why there is conflict. Because Russia cannot help itself.

Spheres extend till they are stopped, it will be stopped in Ukraine. You half acknowledge this reality but don’t see Europe in your framing. This is Europe’s sphere establishing itself in a military sense, removing energy dependency and standing up to the Russians and any other authoritarian powers threatening the continent.

Edited Friday at 08:24 AM by BlueOak