Latest Ukraine/Russia Thread

[BlueOak]

13 hours ago, zazen said:

Looks more like a Western military bloc (NATO) that finally reached a country which Russia couldn't afford to lose (Ukraine) without fighting back - rather than the other way round.

If they wanted to re-build the USSR they should have started with consolidating countries that are easier to conquer (Central Asian stans) with less population, advanced military's / economies / article 5 guarantee's - and more resources that would even make such a thing possibly worth it in the, end at least commercially. Them going for a resource scare region in Eastern Europe with geographically difficult terrain and facing the collective economic and military power of the West seems fantastical if they had any USSR fantasies.

We could say Germany re-arming now is rebuilding the Third Reich or Turkey's presence beyond their borders is re-building the Ottoman Empire. But both cases aren't accurate or would be twisting facts. Russia acting on a single fault line on a highly vulnerable border doesn't scale to a general plan of re-building the USSR.

No doubt though - Russia will likely never reach superpower status and even its great power status will over the long term slip unless some miracles happen. Only China and the US are superpowers, India a rising one with quite a way to go, Russia is a great one stagnating from internal mismanagement / corruption and demographic decline. 

They did. I've used GPT here rather than repost the same post I've made many times for variety. One day I'll get you to see this has been an ongoing struggle since WW2 between democratic and authoritarian powers. This is GPT's recategorisation of the conflicts; personally, i'd list Chechnya in the first list.

I take your point about NATO from a collectivist viewpoint but this is a fundamental misunderstanding of both NATO and how more individualist countries work. Wars were democratically decided; every state chose or not to participate individually and had influence on the decision. These days, though, Trump is both an authoritarian frenemy of Putin, and America has stopped using democracy to decide anything geopolitical. Putin is gambling; he chose one of two options, either slow demographic and geo political decline or a gamble of expansion backed by China and BRICS, but he's been taking over former USSR territories and supporting authoritarian allies for decades.

I do not twist facts; I list them:

Former USSR regions where Russia used armed force externally
(to gain control, freeze conflicts, or impose strategic outcomes)

• Ukraine: Crimea annexed (2014); eastern & southern regions partially occupied after armed intervention (2014–present).
• Georgia: Abkhazia and South Ossetia separated via Russian military intervention; permanent Russian bases after 2008 war.
• Moldova: Transnistria sustained as a de facto breakaway entity after Russian military involvement (1991–92).
• Kazakhstan: Russia-led CSTO military deployment (2022) to stabilize and protect incumbent government.
• Tajikistan: Russian forces supported the government during the civil war (1990s), contributing to regime survival.

Internal Russian regions fitting the “Chechnya model” (or partial variants)
(internal armed conflict, reconquest, or heavy coercive control — not external interventions)

• Chechnya: Full-scale counter-secession wars; Moscow reconquest; rule by a Kremlin-loyal strongman with exceptional autonomy.
• Ingushetia: Insurgency and heavy security operations; partial resemblance but no full secession or strongman regime.
• Dagestan: Persistent insurgency and counter-terror operations; no secessionist war or personalized rule.
• Kabardino-Balkaria: Islamist insurgency; security crackdowns without territorial or regime restructuring.
• Karachay-Cherkessia: Political instability and limited violence; no Chechnya-level conflict.

Contrast cases (autonomy pursued without war)

• Tatarstan: Negotiated sovereignty in the 1990s; no armed conflict.
• Bashkortostan: Political autonomy bargaining; no large-scale violence.
   

Me: Then we have Russia's impact more globally, where it maintains authoritarian governments globally.

Core authoritarian allies with direct military support

Syria
Regime: Personalist authoritarian dictatorship (Assad family)
Russian support:

• Large-scale direct military intervention (since 2015)
• Airpower, special forces, advisers
• Arms supplies and training
• Outcome: Regime survival and territorial reconquest

Belarus
Regime: Personalist authoritarian dictatorship (Lukashenko)
Russian support:

• Weapons integration and training
• Joint military structures
• De facto security guarantee
• Outcome: Regime stability despite mass domestic opposition

Iran
Regime: Theocratic authoritarian system
Russian support:

• Advanced weapons cooperation
• Military coordination (notably Syria)
• Training and intelligence sharing
• Outcome: Strategic military partnership against Western influence

Authoritarian partners with mercenary / expeditionary support

Central African Republic
Regime: Weak authoritarian government
Russian support:

• Wagner Group mercenaries
• Presidential security
• Training of armed forces
• Outcome: Regime survival in exchange for security and concessions

Mali
Regime: Military junta
Russian support:

• Wagner mercenaries
• Training and combat support
• Arms deliveries
• Outcome: Junta consolidation after expelling Western forces

Libya (eastern authorities)
Regime: Authoritarian warlord administration
Russian support:

• Wagner mercenaries
• Weapons and training
• Outcome: Sustained territorial control in eastern Libya

Sudan (pre-2023 and SAF-linked factions)
Regime: Military authoritarian factions
Russian support:

• Wagner presence
• Arms transfers
• Training and resource-for-security arrangements
• Outcome: Influence and leverage during state fragmentation
• Authoritarian states with long-term arms and training dependence

Algeria
Regime: Military-dominated authoritarian system
Russian support:

• Major arms supplier
• Officer training
• Long-term defense integration
• Outcome: Strategic military alignment (non-client, but dependent)

Egypt
Regime: Military authoritarian regime
Russian support:

• Weapons sales
• Joint exercises
• Training cooperation
• Outcome: Diversified security patronage, closer Moscow ties

Myanmar
Regime: Military junta
Russian support:

• Fighter aircraft and arms
• Officer training
• Diplomatic shielding
• Outcome: Regime survival amid international isolation

Venezuela
Regime: Competitive authoritarian dictatorship
Russian support:

• Weapons systems
• Military advisers
• Security cooperation
• Outcome: Regime deterrence against internal/external pressure
   

Post-Soviet authoritarian allies with security backing

Kazakhstan

Regime: Authoritarian presidential system

Russian support:

• CSTO troop deployment (2022)
• Training and arms integration
• Outcome: Regime stabilization during internal crisis

Tajikistan
Regime: Long-standing personalist authoritarian rule
Russian support:

• Permanent military base
• Training and equipment
• Border security assistance
• Outcome: Regime durability and internal control

Summary (high-confidence cases)

Direct military intervention:

• Syria

Mercenary-backed regimes:

• Central African Republic
• Mali
• Libya (east)
• Sudan (factions)

Arms + training authoritarian partners:

• Belarus
• Iran
• Algeria
• Egypt
• Myanmar
• Venezuela
• Kazakhstan
• Tajikistan

Edited yesterday at 09:43 AM by BlueOak

[zazen]

On 2/4/2026 at 9:35 AM, BlueOak said:

This is GPT's recategorisation of the conflicts; personally, i'd list Chechnya in the first list.

But I think its flawed to re-categorise them as building the USSR. The USSR at its core was a imperial political project that had shared economic integration (command economy directed from Russia), military (unified command under the Red Army), and ideology (communism).  Any presence in ex empire regions doesn't automatically mean making that same empire there - it can simply be exercising influence which all powers do.

The distinction between influence and imperialism is intent and coercion - not just presence of bases, troops, economic links. Intent (imperial accumulation or security preservation) + legitimacy (coerced or not) are helpful in understanding.

Russia invading Ukraine for example is clearly illegitimate (morally and lawfully), yet strategically understandable from a security standpoint / buffer state logic where a red line was crossed and acted upon. Same with Georgia, Crimea. The Black Sea is like a strategic throat for Russia (warm water access) which would land lock them if taken out through encirclement and containment (as the US has said it wants to do and has done in action).

Crimea (Sevastopol) is existential for them - which is why it was taken immediately after Maidan. Georgia is also at the underbelly of Russia and on the Black Sea. They flirted with NATO ascension at the 2008 Bucharest summit - after which Russia launched. Moldova is a frozen leftover and the least justifiable or understandable (security wise) position for Russia to hold. It's only possible value is its proximity to Odessa and to complicate NATO encroachment through there presence there - but it definitely isn't existential.

Even the existence of asymmetry or dependency isn't by itself imperial. Strong larger powers naturally create dependency with those they deal with - asymmetries will always exist - just like is happening with China Russia or for example with Pakistan relying on China heavily for its military equipment. What would make China imperial in both cases would be where that arrangement is enforced or coerced by credible punishment or the threat of it for defection ie violent force, sanctions, de-stabilisation and intervention. That is the case with Europe or other countries wanting to play outside the US system by trading outside it (non-dollar settlement).

On 2/4/2026 at 9:35 AM, BlueOak said:

Internal Russian regions fitting the “Chechnya model” (or partial variants)
(internal armed conflict, reconquest, or heavy coercive control — not external interventions)

As the title says - internal. No state willingly gives up or allows secession. Britain with Northern Ireland, Spain with Catalonia, US wouldn't allow it either without a fight. China clamped down on Xinjiang for the same reason - their were also Islamist elements designated as terrorists by the West itself (spillover from a radicalized Middle Eastern region). The method was inhumane yes - but they didn't bomb the region as the West did trying to deal with Islamists.

Russia had a bloody war to maintain Chechnya also - brutal. The first one was actually launched under Yeltsin who was Western aligned and seen as democratically elected / legitimate. He was literally dissolving the USSR - so why Chechnya? Because it wasn't seen as a separate satellite state but Russia proper - which would be like giving up a room in your own house and lead to a domino affect of others also seceding - which is why states prevent secession to begin with. The world could keep breaking up into ethnic / tribal states till we have a 1000 nations on the planet - including Balochistan in Pakistan for example.

On 2/4/2026 at 9:35 AM, BlueOak said:

Former USSR regions where Russia used armed force externally
(to gain control, freeze conflicts, or impose strategic outcomes)

Former colonial regions where ex colonial powers used armed force externally = not necessarily colonialism either if seen from the same lens (legitimacy and coercion).

In all the cases listed Russia / China / Turkey in (Africa/ME) were invited by the host state and their presence is seen as legitimate and non-coercive. No invasion or intervention is happening - only influence of great - middle powers. The reason France's influence is eroding in Africa and being replaced by them is because they were never initially invited (colonial) and their presence remains as a colonial residue losing legitimacy. They aren't expanding empire but aren't dismantling the neo-colonial architecture such as the CFA Franc system either.

Western powers tend to intervene in the economic / political system of countries (with no security logic for doing so that would deem their actions non-imperial). They, along with their institutions (IMF, World Bank) come with strings attached and moral finger wagging of how things should be conducted to favor Western interests and corporations. When countries deny this market access on favorable terms they are couped or invaded (Venezuela). The others are transactional and pragmatic ie non-interventionist.

Russia basically provides security as as service - opportunistic security contracting in volatile regions. For example in Sudan's case they were called in by the state (SAF) - as the state collapsed into civil war they hedged and withdrew. The rebels on other hand are supported by UAE (Western ally) who only started to get criticized when they got too much heat. In fact they have created a axis of secessionists in the region which is why the region is angry at them. Ironic that the most Western / Zionist aligned state is acting in the same divide and conquer manner as its partners.

Countries constantly trade arms and do drills / exercises together - doesn't mean anything in relation to imperial empire building. China provides Ukraine drones / components which are used against its very own ally Russia. Again - transactional not ideological.

Edited 8 hours ago by zazen

[zazen]

On 04/02/2026 at 9:35 AM, BlueOak said:

I take your point about NATO from a collectivist viewpoint but this is a fundamental misunderstanding of both NATO and how more individualist countries work.

I think the Eastern countries were right to join NATO - anyone would have considering the history. Unfortunately no matter how democratic or lawful a countries decision may be - great powers have a red line - which is to not allow other great powers who are seen as rivals that openly want to contain them - park up right next to them either by land (Russia) or sea (China). Just as the Cuban missile crisis was understandably acted upon by the US.

If Venezuela had started stationing Russian/Chinese missiles pointed at the US or started creating deep military interoperability (de-fact NATO style as with Ukraine) - US would be totally understandable for acting upon that - even if it would be morally and lawfully illegitimate and bloody.

The issue wasn't Eastern Europe's fear but was in joining a alliance where the leaders incentives differ. The US seeks primacy of the globe, containing the rise of any challengers to it (Wolfowitz doctrine) - their logic is imperial unipolarity. Mainland Europe's logic (if not imperial) would rationally be seeking to accommodate and co-exist with a nuclear neighbor within a shared security architecture - which geography will never allow you to escape, so it only makes sense to co-exist.

Europe is and has been trapped between Russian security logic and Atlantic hegemonic logic. The Atlanticist empire's of Britain, then passing the baton onto the US - were built off dominating the sea's (trade routes, chokepoints) and finance (reserve currency). Any continental integration happening outside of that control threatens their primacy - including Eurasian integration.

That logic has been so institutionally embedded due to the dominance of the prior British Empire, then the subsequent US empire, that the continent has atrophied it's own strategic thinking relating to whats in its own interest ie don't hitch your ride to one power totally but rather play powers off each other and remain neutral to gain leverage. See who does this well - Turkey, India, Pakistan (between China/US). See the result of not doing it well - Ukraine, Europe. That logic now has its own inertia and is now reflexive - even Epstein is blamed as a Russian honeypot operation lol despite all evidence to the contrary.

Europe's sovereignty has been constrained militarily (NATO-US), economically (US finance and corporations), and energetically (Nord Stream - US LNG dependence rendering them industrially un-competitive). Continental drift towards Eurasian integration has been geopolitically cock blocked and Europe is further tied to the Atlanticist imperial orbit. Only now with the most blatant actions from the US now has Europe rubbing their eyes awake to the need of hedging against that domination, subjugation and humiliation.

On 04/02/2026 at 9:35 AM, BlueOak said:

One day I'll get you to see this has been an ongoing struggle since WW2 between democratic and authoritarian powers.

The US post WW2 literally backed and installed dictators via coups (school of the Americas). It didn't support democracy by principle - it worked with authoritarians when it suited its interest and toppled democratically elected leaders when it didn't (UK-US coup of Mossadeg in Iran 1953). That lead to the revolution and Ayotallah which Western imperialism is still targeting today. The West supports Gulf Monarchs till today too.

The ongoing struggle since WW2 has really been about preventing any independent power center / pole outside Atlantic control - including of Europe itself being one.

Geopolitics start to make sense from this lens. It's been talked about since centuries - Mackinder's world island theory, Spykman's Rimland theory, Brezinksi's great chessboard. ''Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world.''

Hence why Iran-Russia-China are boogeymen - they share the worlds largest landmass and don't want to bend the knee to that primacy. Hence why Israel was strategically seen as a beneficial outpost and frontier state (from Britain till the US) - occupying space on that same land. Biden said Israel is the best investment - and investments require a return on that investment. That return is not for the national interest but for imperial interest.

Hence Greenland's importance - with Artic sea routes opening up trade outside Atlanticist control that would benefit integrating Europe to Asia. That results in Europe gaining future leverage and increased autonomy away from the US orbit - which pre-empts early geostrategic positioning to maintain primacy. Hence Venezuela, a country in the US hemisphere trading outside of the US dollar (reserve currency) needing to be disciplined whilst signalling to other countries not to defect from the financial system that upholds their dominance.

BRICS neutralises Atlantic imperial primacy via finance (non dollar settlement) and trade (land based belt and road). This is the ongoing battle and the great game at play. Not so much authoritarian vs democracy.

 

On Authoritarianism vs Democracy
Invoking communism no longer holds so ''authoritarian vs democracy'' becomes the new story. But it’s less about regime type and more about alignment - which certain regime types (democratic) are easier to penetrate and coerce into alignment.

Communism was for sure a systemic ideological threat because it threatened private capital interests. It's good that communism failed because its genuinely flawed. The issue is that neo-liberalism is too and one ideology failed whilst the other remained to hollow out its own countries leading to financialized feudalism and reactionary populism / authoritarianism. Yeltsin who oversaw the wind down of communist USSR did neo-liberal shock therapy that had terrible results and brought us Putin to hard fistedly stabilise things. Any system that totalizes a particular logic sucks - whether it’s communal logic or capital logic. China is striking a balance today somewhat by using capitalist mechanisms for socialist ends, run by a centralized meritocratic state.

The thing with the West using the ''authoritarian vs democracy'' argument is that liberal democracy is treated as a beginning state that needs to be imposed (ironic) or promoted for development to happen, rather than as a end state that comes after survival and stability are secured - something the West had plenty of time to do via colonization that externalized authoritarian violence and coercion so that they could domestically indulge in universalism pluralism. They had the geopolitical luxury of doing so.

Liberalising requires surplus, which require stability, which requires at least some coercive capacity to begin with. The West went through internal repression, elite consolidation and coercive state building - externalized much violence through empire, then domestically liberalized. They had slack to do so - which no longer exists for late developers in a post-colonial world. 

Countries start to deal with human rights and liberal values once they have the conditions for it after securing the human right of survival and stability. The West's very own actions get in the way, sabotaging that sequence. Intervention by empire used to be justified by the “white mans burden” and is now laundered through “democracy promotion”. The same countries being “helped” get judged by countries that themselves went through and are at the end of that developmental sequence.

Edited 6 hours ago by zazen

[zazen]

On 1/25/2026 at 3:52 PM, zazen said:

Commented just last week and on the previous page how China is tactically downgraded as a threat, to strategically maintain primacy and consolidate power and leverage wherever possible.

Yesterday Pentagon released its new defense strategy : https://news.sky.com/story/china-no-longer-americas-top-defence-priority-pentagon-says-13498252

“The main focus on the homeland includes a section about the US no longer ceding key terrain in the Western Hemisphere and how the Pentagon will provide Mr Trump with "credible options to guarantee US military and commercial access to key terrain from the Arctic to South America, especially Greenland, the Gulf of America, and the Panama Canal."
 

These are material structural shifts in the world order. The US had imperial dominion over the whole earth which it considered as its sphere - it had universality. That era has upended and is now challenged with the rise of other powers specifically China - Thucydides trap in effect. They know they can’t challenge or contain this rival directly without paying enormous cost.

So this Thucydides trap will be managed and not catastrophic or world ending. What has usually ended up in war between the rising power vs the unipolar power seeking to maintain the status quo - is not applicable today due to mutually assured destruction.

What will be replaced by universality is exclusivity and locking in of a imperial US orbit and core. Alignment and loyalty to a US-centric system used to be assumed but now has to be coerced and enforced.

This is why the US now views it “allies” not as junior partners but as assets to extract from, maintain and cement US primacy. They ironically call for “stronger allies” and a “stronger Europe” whilst expecting them to be strategically kneecapped and tied to US interests. Strong but not sovereign.

Europe has structural reasons as to why it will struggle to be a geopolitical pole - its not a rival to the US in any threatening way. But it can be seen as a threat to empire in the sense of it drifting East to where it naturally connects geographically - which is also outside of US control. Eurasian continental integration is a hedge against the Atlanticist monopoly of Europe which seeks to keep it tied to the US orbit.

Venezuela is likewise a disciplinary move to enforce this US-centric economic / systems level iron curtain. Ditto with Trump threatening 100% tariffs on Canada for flirting with trade dealing with China. A neighbor like Canada whose part of NATO and a G7 nation, exercising its autonomy in this way is seen as defiance within the imperial core - an unacceptable example that emboldens others to diversify, defect and hedge: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4qww3w72lo.amp

Keir Starmer will be in China soon to boost ties: https://www.politico.eu/article/britain-finance-trade-chiefs-to-join-keir-starmers-china-trip/

EU looking to have a trade deal with India: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgyz1ejw9no.amp

US vassals already attempting to hedge with BRICS nations - the same nations they lectured about funding and aiding Russia. Reality re-asserts itself against delusions of ideology.

US uni-polarity is ending, its hegemony in relative decline is inevitable - only expedited by its own desperate actions. Don’t mistake this as just a Trump phenomena - it’s institutional not just personal. There is a deep state apparatus behind him looking to maintain if not manage this imperial decline by coercively carving out its position in a multi-polar world - as the Pentagon itself confirms.

 

On 1/20/2026 at 11:19 PM, zazen said:

Macron be like “we’re on the same page with bombing brown people in Middle East, but your picking on junior partners of the imperial core now? Common Donny”

Europe morally grandstands and condems empire while living off it - which is nauseating to many outside the West and increasingly those within it.

They outsourced the hard work of survival and security to be under a US military umbrella, vassalizing themselves whilst largely benefitting from the imperial arrangement as junior partners. They’ve been complicit in sanctions programmes and much US imperial adventurism - whilst acting as if their beyond power and survival dynamics living in some garden of Eden with sub 1% military spending because their so enlightened.

Ironically France has the most strategic autonomy thanks to De Gaulle. The entire continent now has to pursue that together, stop virtue signalling and start capacity building. 

Carney was brilliant today:

The leaders of Europe need to adopt much of his mindset - pragmatic not ideological. Know your strengths and weaknesses, plug your vulnerabilities through diversification, play powers off each other rather than hitching solely to one which can then dictate to you and whose head of state you call daddy like an utter retard.

A reductive but helpful framing is Atlanticist vs continentalist. Europe is connected to the largest landmass on earth (Eurasia) with access to the most resources, markets, trade corridors (Mackinder world island). But the UK and then US tugged Europe into the Atlanticist orbit of both empires. Greenland trade corridors opening up with melting ice allows Europe-Asian trade and integration outside of US control, meaning Europe gains in strategic autonomy and leverage.

Theres a reason many powers have bases all along the Red Sea. Trade corridors provide leverage and deny any one power monopoly over choke points. A trade corridor with solely Eurasian oversight (China, Russia, Europe) gives Europe optionality and leverage against a Atlanticist empire wanting keep Europe hitched to its orbit. Hence the capping of Europe strategic autonomy via military (NATO under US command) and energy (Nordstream anyone?).

The US basically has a kill switch on European military similar to how China has a kill switch on US military via rare earths - hence the scramble and panic to lock down potential resources and trade corridors while they can, on the cheap. This is imperial geostrategic positioning in a desperate bid to maintain primacy under constraints and pressure in a changing world.

Institutional inertia and ideology has locked in a Atlanticist logic that is now being tested by reality slapping Europe across the face. The way the US is brashly acting to maintain this status quo and the structural pressures upon Europe (economically, energetically, public humiliation and domestic discontent) should cause them to *painfully* adapt to the new world as Carney laid out.

 

Related. MEGA.