What Is Russia's Endgame?

[Ajay0]

On 7/26/2025 at 4:27 PM, Mandrake said:

 In fact, we had to overcome vast differences between our "western" countries, and it's still and extremely difficult juggling act to stay united.

This is true. Thousands of people were killed in the aristocratic and nationalistic wars in Europe for centuries, and the two world wars which originated in europe killed over a hundred million people as well.

This however had a positive in the point that it weakened the European colonial nations to the point that they could not hold on to their colonies in Asia and Africa .

I consider this incessant warmongering and bloodshed to be a reason why Europe never reached the 500 million mark, let alone the 1 billion mark of the ancient Indian and Chinese civilizations.

Eckhart Tolle had blamed the excessive egoism and greed fueled materialism in the west for widening the line between existential reality and psychological reality with its numerous abstractions (that has nothing to do with reality as it is).

 

Quote

 

Take Jaishankar, for example. He presents himself like this calm, intellectual statesman, but what he’s really doing is selling a revisionist story—that India is finally rising after centuries of humiliation, and that the West deserves to be put in its place. 

 

There is a general narrative around the world that the western block is unethical, manipulative and had usurped the freedom of many countries and exploited them, with extensive human rights violations. Consequently their advocation and championing of freedom and human rights obviously sounds hollow and hypocritical , devoid of honesty.

However I am not aware of Jaishankar giving similar narratives as such. 

He has only stated that the EU has paid more money to russia and funded it  by buying its oil and gas than it has funded Ukraine.

Indian imports of cheap russian oil is less than european imports of gas and oil. Also India's main customer of cheap refined oil from russian crude, is also the europeans and americans.

If it is a matter of principle, they should have cut off russian oil and gas in the first day of the invasion itself, but they have not done it even after three years as they know that the resultant inflation and higher prices in europe will create widespread resentment among the public, and possible election fiascos.

Thousands of europeans and americans die of hypothermia even now due to homelesness or lack of cheap fuel to warm their homes.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12576771/

Quote

 

There are about 20,000 hypothermia--related deaths a year in Britain, about 25,000--in the USA, 8,000 deaths a year in Canada. There are suggestions that the unofficial number of hypothermia-- related deaths is substantially higher, particularity in the elderly. 

 

Of course, since they are poor, western governments and leadership  consider them expendable and non-entities who does not matter much in the larger scheme of things, unlike the plutocrats or wealthy capitalists of the military-industrial complex who hold the strings and cheques.

All that beer and parties don't come free after all. 

Edited July 28 by Ajay0

[Mandrake]

On 7/28/2025 at 9:55 AM, Ajay0 said:

This is true. Thousands of people were killed in the aristocratic and nationalistic wars in Europe for centuries, and the two world wars which originated in europe killed over a hundred million people as well.

This however had a positive in the point that it weakened the European colonial nations to the point that they could not hold on to their colonies in Asia and Africa .

I consider this incessant warmongering and bloodshed to be a reason why Europe never reached the 500 million mark, let alone the 1 billion mark of the ancient Indian and Chinese civilizations.

Eckhart Tolle had blamed the excessive egoism and greed fueled materialism in the west for widening the line between existential reality and psychological reality with its numerous abstractions (that has nothing to do with reality as it is).

 

There is a general narrative around the world that the western block is unethical, manipulative and had usurped the freedom of many countries and exploited them, with extensive human rights violations. Consequently their advocation and championing of freedom and human rights obviously sounds hollow and hypocritical , devoid of honesty.

However I am not aware of Jaishankar giving similar narratives as such. 

He has only stated that the EU has paid more money to russia and funded it  by buying its oil and gas than it has funded Ukraine.

Indian imports of cheap russian oil is less than european imports of gas and oil. Also India's main customer of cheap refined oil from russian crude, is also the europeans and americans.

If it is a matter of principle, they should have cut off russian oil and gas in the first day of the invasion itself, but they have not done it even after three years as they know that the resultant inflation and higher prices in europe will create widespread resentment among the public, and possible election fiascos.

Thousands of europeans and americans die of hypothermia even now due to homelesness or lack of cheap fuel to warm their homes.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12576771/

Of course, since they are poor, western governments and leadership  consider them expendable and non-entities who does not matter much in the larger scheme of things, unlike the plutocrats or wealthy capitalists of the military-industrial complex who hold the strings and cheques.

All that beer and parties don't come free after all. 

What bothers me is the generalization. 
While India imports significant discounted Russian oil, it’s important to recognize that many European countries have been working hard to diversify their energy sources despite the challenges. The hesitation to cut off Russian energy immediately after the invasion isn’t just about economics or elections—it’s about infrastructure, energy security, and political divisions.

The term “Europe” is often used as if all countries share the same stance on Russian energy—but that’s far from reality. Countries like Hungary and Slovakia, led by pro-Putin governments, have actively resisted EU efforts to reduce dependence on Russian oil and gas. Instead of seeking alternative supplies, they prioritize political loyalty to putin, working against the interests of democracy and European unity.

We should all unequivocally condemn Russia’s invasion of internationally recognized borders. Turning a blind eye today doesn’t just harm Ukraine—it’s a dangerous precedent. Putin has already abandoned allies like Armenia and Assad’s regime in Syria when it suited him. Tomorrow, he could easily turn against countries like "neutral" India. China is watching to see what he can get away with, and is becoming bolder in its ambitions against Taiwan.

 

[Ajay0]

9 hours ago, Mandrake said:

What bothers me is the generalization. 
While India imports significant discounted Russian oil, it’s important to recognize that many European countries have been working hard to diversify their energy sources despite the challenges. The hesitation to cut off Russian energy immediately after the invasion isn’t just about economics or elections—it’s about infrastructure, energy security, and political divisions.

Due to the impoverishment caused by western colonialism, India is still a developing nation at present, and hence need cheap discounted oil to enhance fast economic growth. 

If developed western nations are still buying more oil and gas from russia and funding it more than they fund ukraine, even three years after the war started, it means that they are doing so to benefit their economies and citizens.  

India also have every right to do the same. 

Instead of lamenting India's buying of cheap russian oil, if they are truly earnest about cutting off Russia's war making potential, they should first cut off all commerical dealings  with Russian rare earth minerals, oil and gas  first of all, and accept the consequences . That they are not doing so amply means that they put profits and national comfort above perceived injustice .

India is not a part of nato, and has no quarrel with Russia with whom it has friendly ties, and it is not correct to involve India in this matter.

Edited August 13 by Ajay0

[zazen]

@Ajay0  I believe the EU is doing as much trade with Russia as is India (approx €70 billion worth).US has drastically cut back but is obtaining what it needs.

But to them  - looking out for an impoverished population in a country of 1.5billion people deserves punishment. India, a country with 3-4 times the population with a economy 5-7 times smaller than is required to punish itself.

“Survival needs for me but not for thee”

 

Edited August 13 by zazen

[Inliytened1]

I can tell you this.  Trump already admitted that he will do nothing to change things.  He did this in his actions and words atound the upcoming "summit".  He's so weak.  But he wants to act so strong.  What's their endgame? What's any nations endgame? Power. 

Edited August 13 by Inliytened1

[Mandrake]

@Ajay0 and @zazen

I tried to give you a deeper perspective so you don't look at "the West" as a single country, but you keep on clumping us all together. I already explained the case with Hungary. I don't see much reason to continue this.
 I have lived in India for several months and have found so many loving people there. Yet, I think India will never be really prosperous on all levels until it stops playing the victim (and being the victim is perfectly justifiable when we look at history)

Jaishankar’s smug defiance toward the “collective West” isn’t strategic genius — it’s siding, in effect, with a bloodthirsty, expansionist, revisionist dictator. That path fuels a more unstable, lawless world where borders mean nothing, wars are rewarded, and global norms collapse — a world India will also have to live in. In such a world, China feels freer to grab territory in Arunachal or Ladakh, Pakistan has less restraint in stoking conflict in Kashmir, trade routes in the Indian Ocean become more vulnerable to coercion, and foreign investment dries up as India is seen as an unreliable partner. Short-term discounts on oil will be a poor consolation when the rules-based order is gone and the predators are circling.

 

On 8/13/2025 at 11:15 AM, Inliytened1 said:

I can tell you this.  Trump already admitted that he will do nothing to change things.  He did this in his actions and words atound the upcoming "summit".  He's so weak.  But he wants to act so strong.  What's their endgame? What's any nations endgame? Power. 

Yeah, many people say it's about the money, but I think his thirst for power and significance is really at the top. And there's never enough of it. He's a wannabe putin in their "level red" gang world. He hasn't got as much power, so he tries to compensate for it by finding his way into the news all the time. Regardless of the reason. Well, maybe except those Epstein files. I don't pretend to know, but...  

 

[Ajay0]

On 8/15/2025 at 2:31 AM, Mandrake said:

Jaishankar’s smug defiance toward the “collective West” isn’t strategic genius — it’s siding, in effect, with a bloodthirsty, expansionist, revisionist dictator.

 See historical western literature literally classified the Mongols as dog-headed cannibals who ate european people for food during their european invasions.

While the mongols were a vicious lot, they are not known for cannibalism in any of their campaigns except in western narratives which means that there was a lot of hyperbole involved.

The Huns who invaded europe were similarly depicted by western historians as cannibals though they are  not known for the same anywhere else.

So it was part of propaganda to disparage invaders with false traits to hate them more. However this still amounted to falsehood which gave a distorted picture or account of events.

Western media outlets which are corporate owned, have painted Putin as a monster and hence emphasized the need for more weapons to counter his stale and backward military.

More weapons sales will also mean more profits and money for the military industrial complex capitalists, which in turn means more mansions, super-cars and private jets, private islands for themselves and their girlfriends to party hard. If no money, no fun.

So the western media has to project Putin as a monster to ensure the cash registers are ringing and not staying idle.

In case of Putin, perhaps he maybe a vampire or werewolf or gargoyle at night who hunts europeans in european countries, especially women and children.

 Maybe he is Satan himself. I don't know.

However I would say even Satan requires a second chance and maybe he is all satanic because he is unloved and hated.

As a wise saying goes, “Before you judge me, try hard to love me, look within your heart."

[BlueOak]

On 14/08/2025 at 10:01 PM, Mandrake said:

@Ajay0 and @zazen

I tried to give you a deeper perspective so you don't look at "the West" as a single country, but you keep on clumping us all together. I already explained the case with Hungary. I don't see much reason to continue this.
 

I've been banging that drum for about 5 years now. You have to step outside of your own perspective.

These are collective minds, or using the collective perspective at least to make their posts. Nothing wrong with that at all btw, just a different outlook.

It would help if they could step into a more individualist mind when making their replies at times, if their want was to build bridges as it were, or gain nuance in regions such as Europe, Central asia, the middle east etc. You can do the same while recognizing the collective expression of the West, but also the individuality of regional powers or smaller sovereign countries within it.

This is critical because not doing this is why spheres of influence end up eternally fighting over what they see as smaller pawns, countries too small to exert a large sphere of influence. If these were recognised more in their sovereignty, wars over them would be less frequent. Conflict would still happen, but it would be more isolated and less sphere vs sphere in nature, because in people's minds and perception, that individuality of cultures or societies would carry more weight. (Both in accountability for their mistakes, but also the preservation of peaceful, independent coexistence, not just as proxies)

Edited August 18 by BlueOak

[PurpleTree]

On 2025-08-14 at 11:01 PM, Mandrake said:

@Ajay0 and @zazen

I think they both have Indian heritage. Atleast Ajay for sure. So he basically just spews Indian propaganda. If you’ve ever watched Indian “news” channels you know it’s some of the most vile idiotic stuff you could ever watch. 

[Ajay0]

28 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

I think they both have Indian heritage. Atleast Ajay for sure. So he basically just spews Indian propaganda. If you’ve ever watched Indian “news” channels you know it’s some of the most vile idiotic stuff you could ever watch. 

India wants its allies USA, Europe and Russia to be friends again, and do not wipe each other out idiotically in a nuclear war and holocaust. Get to diplomatic negotations respecting each others security concerns !

Is it too much to ask for ?

In the worse case scenario of a nuclear war, most of the guys here advocating a hawkish stance would be the first to run to the sewers trying to escape the radioactive fallout, and eat rat burgers and cockroaches for the rest of their life. 

I certainly don't want something of that sort to happen,and thus is advocating due prudence and strategic caution.

[PurpleTree]

10 minutes ago, Ajay0 said:

India wants its allies USA, Europe and Russia to be friends again, and do not wipe each other out idiotically in a nuclear war and holocaust. Get to diplomatic negotations respecting each others security concerns !

Is it too much to ask for ?

 

Lol

At some point you have to confront a bully. And funnily enough both sides think the other side is bullying them. Eastern Europe has been under Russian power for a long time and they don’t want back. That’s why everyone wanted to join Nato. And Russia thinks Nato is bullying them and not taking them seriously. And for both sides it’s somewhat convenient to have an enemy. It’s a bit like with Pakistan/India or whatever.

[Ajay0]

9 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

It’s a bit like with Pakistan/India or whatever.

India-Pakistan conflict ended in four days, three months back through successful diplomatic negotiations leading to a ceasefire. 

The Ukraine war however is now raging for more than three years now showcasing europe's lack of credibility in ensuring proper diplomatic mechanisms to end conflict , just as the two world wars that originated in europe and killed over a hundred million, were similar past failures of diplomacy.

Edited August 18 by Ajay0

[PurpleTree]

8 minutes ago, Ajay0 said:

India-Pakistan conflict ended in four days, three months back through successful diplomatic negotiations leading to a ceasefire. 

.

Gpt

The India–Pakistan conflict has lasted for over 77 years, starting in 1947, right after the partition of British India and the creation of the two countries.

 

 

Duration:

 

 

Began: August 1947 (Partition and the first war over Kashmir).

Still ongoing: The dispute over Jammu & Kashmir and political/military tensions remain unresolved today (2025).

 

 

 

Wars & Major Conflicts:

 

 

First Kashmir War (1947–1948) → ~1,000–6,000 killed (various estimates).

Second Kashmir War (1965) → ~7,000–11,000 killed.

Bangladesh Liberation War / Third Indo-Pak War (1971) → 12,000–45,000 killed (includes soldiers and civilians).

Kargil War (1999) → ~1,000 killed.

Cross-border skirmishes & insurgency in Kashmir (1989–present) → Tens of thousands killed, mostly civilians.

 

 

 

Death Toll:

 

 

Estimates vary widely depending on sources.

Since 1947, total deaths are likely between 50,000 and 100,000+, with the majority in Kashmir insurgency and border clashes since 1989.

Partition violence (1947) alone killed 200,000–2,000,000 people during the migration between India and Pakistan (though not strictly part of the military conflict, it was a direct result of partition).

 

 

👉 So, if you include Partition violence + wars + Kashmir conflict, the overall death toll may exceed 500,000.

 

Would you like me to make a timeline chart showing the wars, ceasefires, and estimated deaths over the decades?

 

[Ajay0]

57 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

Would you like me to make a timeline chart showing the wars, ceasefires, and estimated deaths over the decades?

India has fought and won all its wars against Pakistan after independence.

India has the second largest army on earth and is ranked fourth in the world in terms of military power according to the Global Firepower (GFP) index after the US, Russia and China. 

At present it is not in a state of war, due to the power assymetry it enjoys over Pakistan.

In the four day war , it took out Pakistan's air bases with its brahmos cruise missiles and also took out much of its air defense systems, which means that pakistan will not be in a position to commit aggression for a few decades. It was at this point it sought a ceasefire which India diplomatically agreed to. 

This is not the case in the Nato-Russia equation. Russia at this point is mopping up remaining ukrainian positions as per western defense experts themselves

All those Ukrainian civilian and military casualties could have been avoided if Zhelensky had prudently kept neutral, thereby getting good relations with both the Russians and europeans and also acting as a bridge between these two.

The war has also created the possibility of a nuclear war as well between these sides which should have been avoided in the first place by responsible leaders and diplomats.

Edited August 18 by Ajay0

[PurpleTree]

1 hour ago, Ajay0 said:

India has fought and won all its wars against Pakistan after independence.

India has the second largest army on earth and is ranked fourth in the world in terms of military power according to the Global Firepower (GFP) index after the US, Russia and China. 

At present it is not in a state of war, due to the power assymetry it enjoys over Pakistan.

In the four day war , it took out Pakistan's air bases with its brahmos cruise missiles and also took out much of its air defense systems, which means that pakistan will not be in a position to commit aggression for a few decades. It was at this point it sought a ceasefire which India diplomatically agreed to. 

This is not the case in the Nato-Russia equation. Russia at this point is mopping up remaining ukrainian positions as per western defense experts themselves

All those Ukrainian civilian and military casualties could have been avoided if Zhelensky had prudently kept neutral, thereby getting good relations with both the Russians and europeans.

The war has also created the possibility of a nuclear war as well between these sides which should have been avoided in the first place by responsible leaders and diplomats.

Here’s just a silly opinion.
 

You know it’s funny when i was 7 yrs old i was in India 🇮🇳 for two months. In Kolkatta and villages.
 

And i already then liked the Hanuman, Ganesh, Shiva, Kali pics. Of course i think every child likes them because they look fun and colourful, like comics. So there was always a place in my heart for India 💜 And even now i have pictures of Kali and Shiva etc. hanging. Also i like the Baghavad Gita and the Upanishads etc.

Indian food? Nice. Well mostly north west Indian. 

And my mother traveled in India when she was young.

But unfortunately as a group i find Indian posters the most annoying posters of any country on the internet. And Indian news on YouTube are so silly, like a group of nationalistic toddlers made a news channel. (It’s bad) Also delusions of grandeur.

Chinese people don’t really have access to our internet (youtube etc) maybe they would be as annoying but i doubt it.

So my respect for India unfortunately just goes lower and lower (and yet lower)

(Maybe) The west should have never gave you guys Internet.

Alright friend see ya. Maybe i should make a thread about it. 

Edited August 18 by PurpleTree

[martins name]

They want their neighboring countries to be like Belarus. They want economic and political domination. The war happened mostly because of Euromaidan, where Ukrainians chose European economic integration over Russian. The price of this economic integration is steep. Compare Ukraine and Poland. They share a border and both gained independence from decades of brutal imperial subjugation in the 90s. At the time they had the same GDP per capita. Poland then went on to join NATO and economically integrated with the EU before fully joining in 2004. 30 years later, before the war, Poland had 3x the GDP per capita as Ukraine. Basically, Russia is Mordor.

I don't think Putin has a plan to attack any specific country, but he would exploit moments of weakness and fund Russia-friendly authoritarian regimes in neighbouring countries. 

 

[PurpleTree]

Europe is Arjuna @Ajay0

 

We don’t want war. We have some of the most peaceful countries on earth. Democratic and so on. But Krishna said it’s war. And the wheels of war are turning. Russia is blowing up civilians. Churning out bodies and bones.  The universe devouring itself.

 

 

just kidding

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, martins name said:

They want their neighboring countries to be like Belarus. They want economic and political domination. The war happened mostly because of Euromaidan, where Ukrainians chose European economic integration over Russian. The price of this economic integration is steep. Compare Ukraine and Poland. They share a border and both gained independence from decades of brutal imperial subjugation in the 90s. At the time they had the same GDP per capita. Poland then went on to join NATO and economically integrated with the EU before fully joining in 2004. 30 years later, before the war, Poland had 3x the GDP per capita as Ukraine. Basically, Russia is Mordor.

I don't think Putin has a plan to attack any specific country, but he would exploit moments of weakness and fund Russia-friendly authoritarian regimes in neighbouring countries. 

 

It's crazy how people gaslight the victims into thinking they have some sort of obligation to remain with their abuser, because the abuser feels threatened that a new boyfriend will come along to date the victim.

 

It's Russia's own doing that countries are trying to escape it's sphere of influence. The country is absurdly corrupt, and to maintain it's corrupt system it attempts to corrupt the governments of neighbouring countries. Look what people here are arguing, including Leo:

That these nations aren't allowed to reject Russian influence, and that the West isn't allowed to embrace and aid them in their modernization. And if the do reject Russian influence because of corruption and embrace the West for security and economic stability, that it is perfectly valid for the oligarchic regime to invade that country because it is just "protecting itself from western influence".

The grotesqueness of this is just mind-blowing.

Nobody would ever invade Russia, it's a nuclear state, Putin knows this. Russia has absolutely no valid claim of influence to it's neighbouring country, especially not given it's history and even recent imperialistic actions. All of these countries have every reason to reject Russian influence and embrace western influence. It is completely and utterly Russias fault that these countries reject it's influence. The West has a moral obligaiton to help these nations and protect them from corrupt Russian influence.

Russia must be economically, militarily and culturally defeated, containment is the only rational strategy until the politicial landscape in Russia changes (which is might never, which just means we will contain them and destroy their capacity for power indefinitely).

This is real-politics, not this biased excuse making for corrupt oligarchies. 

[martins name]

@Scholar I agree with this 95% but I don't find the perspective of Leo or Mearsheimer, from whom he got his view of the war, grotesque. Their argument is that if you poke a bear, it will bite. It's not a moral justification, just a statement of fact. It correctly recognizes that justice and strategy must sometimes be separated. Where they go wrong is that the West hasn't actually poked Russia.

Mearshimer makes two false claims as proof. First, as you've pointed out, is NATO expansion. The idea that Russian foreign policy is based on the hallucination that they don't have nukes is silly. The second argument is that the American deep state orchestrated Euromaidan. Which is an insane conspiracy theory created by crack pots. Here is a deep breakdown of the conspiracy if you are interested: 

In conclusion, I think the only wrong Mearsheimer has done is 2 factual errors that derail his whole analysis. In the end, this doesn't make his analysis any less destructive, so I completely understand your disgust.

 

Edited August 18 by martins name

[Scholar]

19 hours ago, martins name said:

@Scholar I agree with this 95% but I don't find the perspective of Leo or Mearsheimer, from whom he got his view of the war, grotesque. Their argument is that if you poke a bear, it will bite. It's not a moral justification, just a statement of fact. It correctly recognizes that justice and strategy must sometimes be separated. Where they go wrong is that the West hasn't actually poked Russia.

Mearshimer makes two false claims as proof. First, as you've pointed out, is NATO expansion. The idea that Russian foreign policy is based on the hallucination that they don't have nukes is silly. The second argument is that the American deep state orchestrated Euromaidan. Which is an insane conspiracy theory created by crack pots. Here is a deep breakdown of the conspiracy if you are interested: 

In conclusion, I think the only wrong Mearsheimer has done is 2 factual errors that derail his whole analysis. In the end, this doesn't make his analysis any less destructive, so I completely understand your disgust.

 

No it's not merely a objective fact, it's a selective application of realism. You can't just pretend that what Russia is doing is just the rational extention of it's geopolitical aims, but what Ukraine, the US, NATO are doing is not equally a rational extention of their geopolitical aims.

But that's exactly what is being done, we pretend like the west has some sort of agency that goes beyond realism, and that they can be held "accountable" in a way Russia cannot be held accountable.

 

This is bias. If you subscrube to this naive form of realism (which has been shown to be simply false empirically speaking), then everything is just the natural outcome of geopolitical aims, and everyone is just acting rationally and actually, the conflict was inevitable.

And now Russia will be put out of it's misery. That's reality.

Edited August 19 by Scholar