but only until Russia exploit those countries the same (or worse) than others did before.
Okay, but they can’t exploit them worse. The west still exists and unless their rule becomes completely dominant (Giving them room to punish and set examples), they’ll continue to give countries the same terms they’re giving them now at the minimum. I’m now talking about countries that don’t have to fear immediate invasion by Russia or the USA. Countries with some amount of sovereignty, but not enough to be able to afford making an enemy of the west.
Russia, India, China, whoever (China has caveats but it’s not important for this point) need to show any nations willing step outside Empire’s umbrella that the terms are better.
Maybe if the west collapsed, and all of Russia’s rivals collapsed, Russia could enact worse imperialism and colonialism than what’s there now. But for many many decades to come, the west’s relative power will be very high.
More powerful sovereign economies gives all small economies more choices in how to deal and enrich themselves. What I mean with sovereign economies is economies that are resilient to manipulation by the USA e.g. sanctions and invasion. If being sanctioned by the USA would completely destroy your economy, you would never risk disobeying them. If the BRICS countries are completely immune, both to sanctions and to invasion, that means that as a third country your risk is less when doing business with BRICS. If the USA sanctions you, you’ll still have a powerful ally and trading partner. It’s not risk-free, and having two poles isn’t hugely different from having a hegemon. But multipolarity, which is the real effect Russia winning this war is having, is good for everyone but the hegemon.
I just believe it started as Putin’s wish to reunite USSR to its former glory. His words years ago: “The breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century.”
It was a geopolitical tragedy, because it created a hegemon. Putin’s words would have some meaning if he had any power to make that happen, but he doesn’t. Him wishing The Soviet Union existed doesn’t mean any of the post-soviet countries wish they were Russia. The Soviet Union could offer a system that was attractive to people from those countries. What can Russia offer? Practically nothing. The Ukrainian areas that Russia has incorporated were all areas with strong Russian support, for one reason or another. Invading and annexing hostile areas is much harder. Beyond their ability, surely.
I do not agree [that the invasion of Ukraine is self-defence].
Say Russia didn’t invade Ukraine. What would happen? NATO has been expanding, that isn’t disputable, Russia has set red lines (you can think these red lines are bullshit), and those red lines have been crossed. Whether the red line is reasonable or not, the fact is Russia used to have to power to have their red lines respected, they would’ve lost that power without the invasion of Ukraine, and they now again have that power. By invading Ukraine, Russia has stopped itself from rapidly losing power. Some people might consider this already self-defence. I don’t think you should. But by being surrounded by NATO, by many of the post-Soviet countries and EU countries adopting strong anti-Russia sentiments (before the invasion), by the USA having targetted them as a target to destroy, it’s realistic for Russia to fear attack. If someone wants to attack you, they are an enemy, and denying enemy attack vectors would then be self-defence.
To be precise, under international law, pre-emptive strikes don’t qualify. You could call any action a pre-emptive strike if it did. But I’m not looking to clear them of wrong-doing, I’m trying to find their real motivation. I believe this is their real motivation. This is consistent with Russian insistence on security guarantees, them giving multiple chances, and them pulling out of Kyiv, and them attending the peace talks in Türkiye in the first half of the war.
There’s a lot of in-depth information available on this site and others if you aren’t convinced but feel this line of thinking is worth exploring.
__
And now I will reply to the meat of the comment in the topic of your country’s development. Thank you for replying in good faith. I’m glad you feel your country is improving, and meritocratic.
You believe living conditions have improved dramatically: (I don’t use the word ‘believe’ to discredit it, but I’m addressing your subjective opinion at the moment): I must then challenge you on if the improvements have outpaced your country’s (or region, if it was part of the USSR)'s wealth, and the advance in technology. I must also challenge you on if your perception of the Soviet Union is a fair one or one formed by influence from propaganda. You can’t answer these questions, but you should consider them as analytically as you can.
For example you say people get paid to do nothing, and that’s bad. But it’s not bad for the worker. It’s bad for the nation. If the nation is losing money on that worker doing nothing, it’s in the nation’s best interest to find contributive work for that worker. We can safely assume that the nation makes choices in its best interest and will find contributive work for that person eventually. Meanwhile they’re getting a salary. People are also left outside the job market under liberalism, but they’ll be on unemployment or homeless. From just that example, while both scenarios are a failing of the system, the USSR system is better for the worker.
You then talk about a low standard in terms of everyone’s wealth and access to goods, leisure, housing etc. But consider the USSRs economic realities. It transformed very poor nations into middle income nations in a very short amount of time, all while suffering a devastating war. The priority was giving everyone something, and quality could come gradually when no one was destitute.
Again, I’m grateful that you decided to reply in good faith and value your opinions on the state of your government and country, even if I don’t agree with your conclusion regarding the USSR-local SSR relationship and the USSR as a whole.
I think we can agree that we disagree in most core parts. I could argue with you and point out that your logic can be twisted (“influence from propaganda” etc.) but I choose not to. It’s not that I sweep your comment of the table. There’s definitely some points I agree with you (not everything needs to be US/west centric), but at the same time I believe simple “falling under different hegemon’s sphere” won’t change much for the better. Part of why I came to this conclusion was studying history of my own country.
Okay, but they can’t exploit them worse. The west still exists and unless their rule becomes completely dominant (Giving them room to punish and set examples), they’ll continue to give countries the same terms they’re giving them now at the minimum. I’m now talking about countries that don’t have to fear immediate invasion by Russia or the USA. Countries with some amount of sovereignty, but not enough to be able to afford making an enemy of the west.
Russia, India, China, whoever (China has caveats but it’s not important for this point) need to show any nations willing step outside Empire’s umbrella that the terms are better. Maybe if the west collapsed, and all of Russia’s rivals collapsed, Russia could enact worse imperialism and colonialism than what’s there now. But for many many decades to come, the west’s relative power will be very high.
More powerful sovereign economies gives all small economies more choices in how to deal and enrich themselves. What I mean with sovereign economies is economies that are resilient to manipulation by the USA e.g. sanctions and invasion. If being sanctioned by the USA would completely destroy your economy, you would never risk disobeying them. If the BRICS countries are completely immune, both to sanctions and to invasion, that means that as a third country your risk is less when doing business with BRICS. If the USA sanctions you, you’ll still have a powerful ally and trading partner. It’s not risk-free, and having two poles isn’t hugely different from having a hegemon. But multipolarity, which is the real effect Russia winning this war is having, is good for everyone but the hegemon.
It was a geopolitical tragedy, because it created a hegemon. Putin’s words would have some meaning if he had any power to make that happen, but he doesn’t. Him wishing The Soviet Union existed doesn’t mean any of the post-soviet countries wish they were Russia. The Soviet Union could offer a system that was attractive to people from those countries. What can Russia offer? Practically nothing. The Ukrainian areas that Russia has incorporated were all areas with strong Russian support, for one reason or another. Invading and annexing hostile areas is much harder. Beyond their ability, surely.
Say Russia didn’t invade Ukraine. What would happen? NATO has been expanding, that isn’t disputable, Russia has set red lines (you can think these red lines are bullshit), and those red lines have been crossed. Whether the red line is reasonable or not, the fact is Russia used to have to power to have their red lines respected, they would’ve lost that power without the invasion of Ukraine, and they now again have that power. By invading Ukraine, Russia has stopped itself from rapidly losing power. Some people might consider this already self-defence. I don’t think you should. But by being surrounded by NATO, by many of the post-Soviet countries and EU countries adopting strong anti-Russia sentiments (before the invasion), by the USA having targetted them as a target to destroy, it’s realistic for Russia to fear attack. If someone wants to attack you, they are an enemy, and denying enemy attack vectors would then be self-defence.
To be precise, under international law, pre-emptive strikes don’t qualify. You could call any action a pre-emptive strike if it did. But I’m not looking to clear them of wrong-doing, I’m trying to find their real motivation. I believe this is their real motivation. This is consistent with Russian insistence on security guarantees, them giving multiple chances, and them pulling out of Kyiv, and them attending the peace talks in Türkiye in the first half of the war.
There’s a lot of in-depth information available on this site and others if you aren’t convinced but feel this line of thinking is worth exploring.
__
And now I will reply to the meat of the comment in the topic of your country’s development. Thank you for replying in good faith. I’m glad you feel your country is improving, and meritocratic.
You believe living conditions have improved dramatically: (I don’t use the word ‘believe’ to discredit it, but I’m addressing your subjective opinion at the moment): I must then challenge you on if the improvements have outpaced your country’s (or region, if it was part of the USSR)'s wealth, and the advance in technology. I must also challenge you on if your perception of the Soviet Union is a fair one or one formed by influence from propaganda. You can’t answer these questions, but you should consider them as analytically as you can.
For example you say people get paid to do nothing, and that’s bad. But it’s not bad for the worker. It’s bad for the nation. If the nation is losing money on that worker doing nothing, it’s in the nation’s best interest to find contributive work for that worker. We can safely assume that the nation makes choices in its best interest and will find contributive work for that person eventually. Meanwhile they’re getting a salary. People are also left outside the job market under liberalism, but they’ll be on unemployment or homeless. From just that example, while both scenarios are a failing of the system, the USSR system is better for the worker.
You then talk about a low standard in terms of everyone’s wealth and access to goods, leisure, housing etc. But consider the USSRs economic realities. It transformed very poor nations into middle income nations in a very short amount of time, all while suffering a devastating war. The priority was giving everyone something, and quality could come gradually when no one was destitute.
Again, I’m grateful that you decided to reply in good faith and value your opinions on the state of your government and country, even if I don’t agree with your conclusion regarding the USSR-local SSR relationship and the USSR as a whole.
I think we can agree that we disagree in most core parts. I could argue with you and point out that your logic can be twisted (“influence from propaganda” etc.) but I choose not to. It’s not that I sweep your comment of the table. There’s definitely some points I agree with you (not everything needs to be US/west centric), but at the same time I believe simple “falling under different hegemon’s sphere” won’t change much for the better. Part of why I came to this conclusion was studying history of my own country.
Removed by mod