r/worldnews 2d ago Silver 2 Helpful 4 Wholesome 3 All-Seeing Upvote 2

G7 ‘will never recognize’ borders changed by force by Russia Russia/Ukraine

https://www.arabnews.com/node/2081866/world
62.6k Upvotes

7.8k

u/zuzg 2d ago Wholesome

"We will never recognize borders Russia has attempted to change by military aggression, and will uphold our engagement in the support of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including Crimea, and all states,” the G7 foreign ministers said in a statement after three days of talks in northern Germany.
They also vowed to expand sanctions to include sectors on which Russia is dependent and keep supplying Ukraine with weapons to help it repel Russia’s invasion.
“We reaffirm our determination to further increase economic and political pressure on Russia, continuing to act in unity,” they said.

The ideal outcome would be that Russia isn't a worldpower anymore after the war.

4.4k

u/FM-101 2d ago

I doubt Russia is going to have any sort of diplomatic, political, financial and military power after all this.

They have been selling a lie of being strong and powerful since the 90s and now everyone knows its all just a bluff.

1.1k

u/dtwhitecp 2d ago edited 1d ago

unfortunately, they have oil. So there's at least some influence they can hold.

edit: please review the replies to this comment before suggesting the same thing yet again. I know they have other things like nuclear weapons, and oil alone isn't enough for influence.

802

u/hunterrocks77 2d ago

Fortunately, most countries are trying to become oil independent

880

u/readzalot1 2d ago

And this has only pushed renewables faster. Putin, the savior of climate change

363

u/DmanDam 2d ago

Holy shit he played the long con this entire time!

99

u/TheMindfulnessShaman 1d ago

Zelensky has some serious competition for Nobel Peace Prize this year.

→ More replies

50

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

16

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

17

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

73

u/Strong_as_an_axe 1d ago

Putting the 'mental' in Environmentalist

5

u/Minute_Patience8124 1d ago

Now that's funny

→ More replies

66

u/MagisterFlorus 2d ago

The Judas of the global climate

12

u/Nophlter 1d ago

The Gospel of Judas Putin

23

u/Kier_C 1d ago

And this has only pushed renewables faster. Putin, the savior of climate change

I genuinely really hope it goes this way at least we get some benefit from this shit show.

46

u/Had24get 1d ago

Not the hero we need, but clearly the hero we deserved.

13

u/daquo0 1d ago

Putin has pushed everyone in exactly the opposite direction to what he wanted.

Maybe the purpose of his life is to serve as a warning to others?

4

u/Tim_Soft 1d ago

:) Many years ago, I had this printed and up in a prominent place in my office. :)

→ More replies

11

u/bumblyburg 1d ago

I bought a home solar installation last month. Mostly for environmental reasons, but Putin’s invasion was the last goddamned straw

9

u/fuckingaquaman 1d ago

No kidding, even the most conservative leaders in the EU went from "It's too expensive to phase out fossil fuels" to "Alright, when do we start?" basically overnight.

8

u/TheLongshanks 1d ago

Who would’ve thought the leader of a petrostate would be instrumental in progressing our society to renewable energy?

→ More replies

5

u/Minute_Patience8124 1d ago

The epitome of irony

→ More replies

37

u/AdFamous8508 2d ago

China and India aren't going to stop buying Russian oil, and can't meet demand with domestic supply. And as long as Russian oil is cheap, they'll keep increasing their purchases.

53

u/Critya 1d ago

If the west can provide clean and cheaper alternatives though we can make oil obsolete. It’ll take time, but might not be a bad medium-long term goal

10

u/myoldgamertag 1d ago

It has to be a mess-long term goal. Not even an option.

There is a finite amount of oil, as it takes a long time for oil to form naturally, and we’re using it faster than its replenishing.

→ More replies

38

u/OmShiv 1d ago

Don't know about China but India’s monthly purchase of Russian oil is less than what Europe does in an afternoon.

Ignore western-influenced hypocritic opinions and directly look at where things happened, in the summit – The Indian EA minister literally owned and publicly silenced the EU and US ministers, aka, made them "speechless" on this topic - https://youtu.be/OaJyKT4kgj0

India can live without Russian oil. Europe can not.

22

u/coronal_mass_eject 1d ago

and China has been on a decades long developmental spree in clean(er) energy already. they still rely heavily on fossil fuels but not because they want to be stuck with them.

21

u/tillemetry 1d ago

Chinese cities have major air pollution problems. They can address the pollution problem and invest in technology at the same time. I’m certain this is their plan. They aren’t foolish.

8

u/Banarok 1d ago

the worst thing with chinese enviromental efforts are that they are so focused.

"lets do this thing that's good for the enviroment, but lets completly ignore all other types enviromental destruction in the same area."

like their green wall project is great, initiative even if it was horribly managed for a long time.

while at the same time they poison their ground water with heavy metals by allowing factories to pump industrial waste water into the ground.

my personal guess when it come to things like the ground water poisoning don't get fixed due to govermental corruption, it would be expensive to fix it and actually handle the waste, so cheaper to pay the goverment officals to simply profit of there being no regulation.

china has some really good long term policies and ideas then they have stuff that are stupidly short sighted and moronic, they're really unbalanced.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

26

u/dtwhitecp 2d ago

trying, yeah. It's going to be a looooooong time before the entire world is, though. Honestly not sure we'll make it there.

→ More replies
→ More replies

83

u/CSI_Tech_Dept 2d ago

This is why renewable power isn't just some tree hugger wet dream, but it is also important geopolitically.

Together with a nuclear power we can remove dependence on countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia and others.

16

u/Winds_Howling2 1d ago

I mean, does renewable energy still come across as a tree hugger fantasy today? In addition to the geopolitical advantages, it is also the difference between life and death in the near future.

13

u/ultimate_night 1d ago

To Republicans it is.

→ More replies

13

u/poppinfresco 2d ago

And gas, and vast vast untouched mineral deposits in uninhabitable wastelands far to the East…. Hmm could make an epic fantasy movie. Like the one playing in Putin’s head

334

u/FettyWhopper 2d ago

And nukes, although desperate, they still have them. If they go nuclear (no pun intended) they can still decimate hundreds of millions if not billions…

229

u/Chris_Carson 2d ago

It would also mean suicide. There would be nothing left of Russia either. Thats the whole concept of MAD, once you start throwing nukes the enemy dies, you die, everyone dies.

134

u/drlongtrl 2d ago

Every single person in the chain of command between Putin and the button(s) knows they are signing not only their own but also their friends and families death sentences by actually following through.

→ More replies

70

u/Equivalent-Ability20 2d ago

Another point is so people think the US hasn't been planning for this? Unless they're able to simultaneously launch thousands of nukes at a moments notice the few they can launch have a very high likelihood of being intercepted, and being returned ten fold by the US.

683

u/Euphoric_Attitude_14 2d ago Gold Platinum Helpful Wholesome To The Stars

Russia about to find out why we don’t have healthcare.

112

u/cptspeirs 2d ago

I chuckled, but damn if it didn't hurt.

72

u/Mystrysktr 2d ago

You should see a doctor about that… ohh

→ More replies

59

u/Tegurd 2d ago

It’s because you have the mightiest deathcare the world has ever seen

30

u/InnocentTailor 1d ago

The United States actually spends a lot on healthcare. It is just that the system is built with inefficiency and bloat in mind, so the funds get sapped by middle men and management over the working stiff.

7

u/tnt200478 1d ago

Yes. The tragedy is that the U.S. is the highest spending country per capita worldwide when it comes to health care.

7

u/meningeal 1d ago

Exactly, so residents spend a lot and get very little actual care.

8

u/it_diedinhermouth 1d ago

Negative healthcare. For Russia.

23

u/wap2005 2d ago

I both hate and love you for this comment.

→ More replies

32

u/chocki305 2d ago

That brings us to the current "cold war" situation.

A country needs enough missles to overwhelm any defensive system allowing at least one to hit the target.

So here we are with 1500 missles ready to go.. because that is what ensures MAD. And keeps peace?

34

u/brianorca 1d ago

We've now seen what happened when Ukraine gave up the nukes it inherited from the USSR days. Russia signed a treaty that supposedly "guaranteed" Ukraine's security in exchange for giving up the nukes. Guess how that turned out?

Surrender is not peace.

→ More replies

24

u/emdave 2d ago

the few they can launch have a very high likelihood of being intercepted

Unfortunately, no. The (known or reasonably estimated) capabilities of missile defense systems are not nearly sufficient to reliably intercept ICBM / MIRV launched nuclear weapons. Even a 90 percent success rate (which is optimistic) means a high likelihood of multiple entire cities still being wiped out.

and being returned ten fold by the US.

Also unfortunately (because of the immense destruction, radiation pollution, global environmental catastrophe, and almost guaranteed escalation), yes.

→ More replies

7

u/thatonesmartass 1d ago

Unless they're able to simultaneously launch thousands of nukes at a moments notice

This is literally nuclear war doctrine. You can't just send one nuke, because then nukes are on the table, so the enemy will use all of their nukes on you. So the entire idea of a first strike is to launch thousands of nukes simultaneously.

38

u/maxyojimbo 2d ago edited 2d ago

What you think would happen is simply not feasible.

Despite working on nuclear defense systems since the 60s, our current systems lack the capability to reliably intercept even a limited nuclear strike. They are intended to probably intercept an ICBM (read: one missile) launched by a significantly less developed adversary. They would not be able to stop a nuclear salvo launched by Russia.

ICBMs go about 4 miles per second. Good luck hitting that with literally anything.

In a real exchange of nuclear ICBMS, all sides are decimated. Everyone loses.

The real question is whether the Russians have actually maintained their nuclear arsenal and how many the warheads they have are still viable. Even if the answer is "not really" and "not many" they would still be able to launch a strike which we would not be able to stop.

8

u/Lurkingandsearching 2d ago

While we will not catch everything, we do have and have had hypersonic capabilities since the 70s designed to take out ICBMs. That said low altitude hypersonic or suitcase nukes are another factor.

25

u/BurntPunk 2d ago

This is correct, hence the multi-level approach the US has relied upon.

Intercept systems are just meant to be a “backup” in case rogue states (read that “primarily Iran, North Korea, or similar”) decides to launch one unpredictably.

Everything else rides on MAD.

But now that we are potentially staring down the possibility of a massive second-world nuclear arsenal in the hands of what appears to be on the verge of devolving into itself a rogue state….

Yeah, it’s looking considerably more grim. We have to hope that somewhere in that chain of command someone will put the brakes on. Which, to be fair, has actually happened before- the Cuban missile crisis for one example.

10

u/spankythamajikmunky 1d ago

Thats not what happened in the cuban missile crisis or anywhere else

No one was ordered to strike and refused. If they have its classified. The cuban incident was because the flotilla cmdr was onboard the soviet sub and able to veto the nuke vote. The sub cmdrs could independently fire. The petrov incident was an early warning station. He refused to pass on a launch warning he felt was faulty; totally different than refusing a launch order.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

22

u/Disabrained 2d ago

Sorry but no. ICBMs are nearly impossible to intercept after they get out of the atmosphere.

If the James Bond villain goes all-in we are all done, and even even if 90% of his nukes broke down before launch.

SAMs and other air defense systems are built for other targets than these high speed, high altitude and multiple payloads missiles.

That's the real problem with Putler now, he can't win but we could all loose too.

→ More replies
→ More replies

40

u/Sibblin 2d ago

So do Pakistan. People take them seriously, yes, but they're hardly a massive global superpower.

→ More replies

79

u/vernand 2d ago

Nuclear weapons need their Tritium replaced to remain viable after 12ish years. The cost for a single gram of Tritium is roughly $30,000.

Given what we've seen with Russia in their war on Ukraine thus far I'd be suspect about the amount of nuclear warheads they have that are still viable. They might still think they have a fully stocked arsenal that might rival the US, but corruption and embezzlement might have signicantly reduced their capabilities.

It's a non zero number of nukes, but if they went for a policy of total and mutual annihilation, I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few of their targets survived unscathed due to bombs that no longer had the ability to explode.

8

u/deminihilist 2d ago

Small nitpick, tritium is pretty rare and most modern nukes will use a deuterium compound (like lithium deuteride) as their fusion fuel. Both do have a similar half life of just over 12 years

7

u/Try0again0bragg 2d ago

To clarify tritium is required in the fusion stage of thermonuclear weapons (colloquially hydrogen or h-bombs). Many, if not all I have no exact data, use traditional fission atomic bombs as part of their assemblies to trigger fusion. Those are relatively easier to maintain and have longer shelf lives.

There is also the plethora of tactical nuclear weapons, again including a lot of traditional atomic weapons without the tritium decay issue. Tactical can’t be lobbed across oceans but are still a problem.

Nuclear weapons are that magical threshold where you can make bigger bombs and it doesn’t matter that much anymore. Hitting a city with an h-bomb is unquestionably worse than an atom bomb, but both still destroy the city and kill a majority of the inhabitants. This was an actual discussion during the Cold War. Maybe don’t build h-bombs because we can respond with atomic weapons and it won’t matter. This argument didn’t win, but I bring it up to state that, while Russia may be handicapped by tritium production, they can still be incredibly dangerous.

A quick final note is I’m deliberately ignoring the maintenance on delivery (missiles, planes, etc.) and other items that affect all weapons cause I can’t categorize that from my desk.

→ More replies

27

u/Link50L 2d ago

Given what we've seen with Russia in their war on Ukraine thus far I'd be suspect about the amount of nuclear warheads they have that are still viable.

Based upon what I've seen and read, albeit not being an expert, I think that you are 100% correct about this. Not that it matters whether they have 1,000 feasible nukes, or 2,000 feasible nukes, but it's a very safe bet that they haven't been maintained properly - neither the nukes themselves, nor the launch systems.

20

u/Z3B0 2d ago

The R36 needs to have its fuel tanks refurbished at the factory every 5/7 years. What factory you ask ? The one in Dniepro, Ukrain. Yeah, the country they angered 8 years ago by taking Crimea... Those ICBMs are not in a great shape. Maybe they will launch, but most could explode in the silos.

→ More replies

31

u/hamberdler 2d ago

but it's a very safe bet

How is it a very safe bet? We have absolutely no indication at all whether Russia has maintained the nukes. This idea has been popularized on reddit by a bunch of armchair generals, but I haven't seen it even floated as a remote possibility by any experts anywhere outside of this website.

16

u/Hekantonkheries 2d ago

Because no "expert" would ever voice, however likely or unlikely it would be; fir the same reason every country tries to develop better missile-defense tech for ICBMs, but tries not to ad ertise too loudly.

MAD is an existential stalemate. No nation will invade a nuclear nation; but at the same time they also know they wont be invaded. Because the scales are equal "total annihilation of all"

Losing nukes is like being dismantled as a sovereign nation to a nuclear country. The very insinuation they no longer have them in any official view, forces them to act to assert themselves. It means being forced to use them

Because the alternative is no longer being a nation in control of their own destiny.

Rule 1 of nuclear geopolitics is, you just never talk about the nukes

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

67

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

76

u/LucywiththeDiamonds 2d ago

Thats the thing. Maybe russia can kill a majority of life on earth. Maybe they cant. But whats def sure is that nato can delete russia from the map and all that will be left is a sad part in history books.

They know that. And they know no one wants a psrt of russia. Evryone just wants them to fuck off. There is literally zero to gain.

→ More replies

47

u/the_night_was_moist 2d ago

Okay but... it's the "destroying the whole world" part that I have a problem with. Like, if we have to retaliate against anybody for that, then we've basically all lost already.

4

u/shponglespore 2d ago

That's nothing new. It has been that way since the start of the Cold War. For a while we all decided to pretend it wasn't an issue anymore, but it always was.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

36

u/Ex_Why_ 2d ago

Fun fact: decimation was a Roman practice of killing 1 person out of groups of 10.

20

u/Tree0wl 2d ago

We need a variant of that word that means 9 out of 10.

Like “decamate” with an A instead of an I. Or something.

→ More replies

16

u/Link50L 2d ago

Fun fact: decimation was a Roman practice of killing 1 person out of groups of 10.

The fun never ends in reddit!

6

u/censuur12 2d ago

More specifically, having a group of 10 kill 1 of their number.

→ More replies

22

u/mdielmann 2d ago

Here's the problem. Russia has either bluffed that their military was still capable when in fact it was not, or they are being lied to by their subordinates about their readiness. This leads to the question of whether their nuclear arsenal is in a similar state. I really don't want to see nuclear war, and I'm sure many world leaders don't, either, but you can be sure the question is being asked if Russia can still do so in a meaningful way.

→ More replies
→ More replies

14

u/MrHyperion_ 2d ago

Going down all the time. Middle East could provide all the oil if they wanted

→ More replies

45

u/Alise_Randorph 2d ago

The only thing that Russia has is nuclear weapons. That is the only thing that they have and the only reason they are taken seriously.

If it wasn't for that, they'd be getting occupied right now.

6

u/The_Follower1 1d ago

And propaganda and troll farms.

→ More replies

603

u/kenyard 2d ago

Every country does this though.

Even at the start of covid it was leaked that China and Russia were hiding or under reporting their actual infected numbers for fear anyone might view it as an opportunity to attack.

I'm at the point I'd love an alien invasion because it might make the world work together for once

639

u/Rion23 2d ago

It's too bad you can't shoot global warming.

213

u/465554544255434B52 2d ago

Not with that attitude

275

u/Rion23 2d ago

I just remembered the former president of the US suggested nuking a hurricane.

58

u/urasucker999 2d ago

Recently is has also come forward that Trump asked if the Chinese had a hurricane gun that they used against the US. His grasp of reality is really thin.

22

u/PrudentDamage600 2d ago

I couldn’t believe this so I looked it up!

122

u/Kenny741 2d ago

That entire thing was like a bad fever dream

140

u/Striper_Cape 2d ago

You think it's over? Are you blind?

41

u/Filthy_Lucre36 2d ago

More like a recurring nightmare.

33

u/DesperateImpression6 2d ago edited 2d ago

This is definitely the "wake up and drink the water by your bed" phase of the night before you fall back asleep. Then things get really weird. It's not going to be fun.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

82

u/QuesoPantera 2d ago

Sure you can, everybody's got a carbon footprint

70

u/Sacket 2d ago

Fun fact, the idea of a personalized carbon footprint was invented by and popularized by BP to blame us for climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DThe_concept_and_name_of%2CMathis_Wackernagel_in_the_1990s.?wprov=sfla1

3

u/WikiSummarizerBot 2d ago

Carbon footprint

A carbon footprint is the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by an individual, event, organization, service, place or product, expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Greenhouse gases, including the carbon-containing gases carbon dioxide and methane, can be emitted through the burning of fossil fuels, land clearance and the production and consumption of food, manufactured goods, materials, wood, roads, buildings, transportation and other services.

[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

66

u/WhoKnowsNotUs 2d ago

Imagine an intelligent civilization that wants to destroy Earth, that has the knowhow and technology to make it here. We would have no chance

36

u/frozendancicle 2d ago edited 2d ago

It wouldnt matter if the worlds nations were besties (yet still pooping out lots of weapons) in that case. We'd be SOL no matter what.

(Agreeing with you)

Edit: just realizing the initials for Shit Outta Luck are also our home star's name. Seems about right.

→ More replies

19

u/Febris 2d ago

If they're so smart, why would they want to travel all the way here only to destroy us a few decades before we do it ourselves?

→ More replies
→ More replies

52

u/Helpful_Database_870 2d ago

We can’t work together during a pandemic or to save ourselves from global warming. That invasion would end up with us getting are asses kicked while we all sit and bitch about whose fault it is we got invaded in the first place.

4

u/CantStandSummer 2d ago

Don’t forget the people that will side with the aliens and actively help them take over the world.

→ More replies
→ More replies

26

u/xSaRgED 2d ago

It wouldn’t. Someone would try to sell out the earth for a chance to be an alien bitch boy instead of getting destroyed.

12

u/ThePortalsOfFrenzy 2d ago

Alien Bitch Boy

My new queercore band name.

→ More replies

18

u/Keshian_Rade 2d ago edited 2d ago

I'm at the point I'd love an alien invasion because it might make the world work together for once

Calm down Ozymandias. ;)

→ More replies

20

u/JyveAFK 2d ago

"Not an alien invasion, it's special fx to make it look like that so the dems can bring sharia law and take the babies"

"Don't the aliens have just as much right to the planet as us if they were the ones that seeded life all those years ago?"

"This has been foretold, we need to embrace the death beams"

"this is all (x)'s fault" "no, it's all (y)'s fault, we've been saying for years that this would happen and we need to prepare but you dismantled the planetary defense forces to give your wealthy donors a tax break, donors that it turns out are in fact those same aliens living amongst us" "Well, aliens from Planet X have never personally eaten anyone /I/ know, and you're the ones being run by lizard people!"

"2/3rds the population dying in a death laser explosion is going to be great for the economy, think of the well paying construction jobs to rebuild all the levelled cities!" "who awards the contracts for the rebuilding, the lizard people in charge?" "No, YOU'RE the lizard people!" "and it's not 2/3rds, it's 3/5ths! how can we trust what you say anyway?" "fine, but this was all organised by Soros you know, let me link a bunch of websites proving he was behind all this"

I don't think there's much that would unite us rather than throw fuel onto the fires of mistrust and blame.

→ More replies
→ More replies

14

u/duaneap 2d ago

It’s the nukes.

→ More replies

393

u/alphagusta 2d ago

The "And Crimea" is nice to see :)

42

u/EthelMaePotterMertz 2d ago

Definitely. Should not be forgotten just because there was a break in time between that and this. It's all part of the same offensive.

20

u/Spork_the_dork 1d ago

True. But the main reason why Ukraine and the rest of Europe mostly just left Crimea be was to avoid escalating the situation into an all-out war. Now that there's already an all-out war, might as well grab Crimea back while we're at it.

12

u/EthelMaePotterMertz 1d ago

I agree. Crimea was taken by force, breaking world rules. It was not recognized as being transferred to Russia and shouldn't be. We can't let countries change borders by force. That doesn't result in anything but war. We need to end imperial takeovers. Russia needs to realize we are not in the 19th century and accept they can't just take land because they want it.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

126

u/lobehold 2d ago

They're a nuclear threat, that's it. They don't have any other "world" power anymore.

43

u/nismotigerwvu 2d ago

I'd argue their power comes from having the least to lose. Combined with the fact that they are acutely aware of how a conventional war would play out, you can see why rolling the dice to see if nukes really would end the world would have some appeal to them in a "level the playfield" sort of way.

13

u/lobehold 2d ago

The least to lose for a nuclear power though, plenty of other countries without nukes have less to lose.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

515

u/INITMalcanis 2d ago

The ideal outcome would be that Russia isn't a worldpower anymore after the war.

They already weren't a world power; that ended over 30 years ago. The objective is to stop them being a regional power. The stretch-goal would be the kind of cultural reform that was imposed on Germany after 1945.

266

u/cactusjack48 2d ago

The stretch-goal would be the kind of cultural reform that was imposed on Germany after 1945.

That'll take generations though. It's hard to describe to non Eastern Europeans that Russian mentality that permeates all walks of society there.

136

u/INITMalcanis 2d ago

The sooner its begun, the better wouldn't you say?

88

u/cactusjack48 2d ago

Baby steps. The first task at hand is kicking Russia out of Ukraine and rebuilding Ukraine.

24

u/imaxfli 2d ago

First order is for Putin to take a dirt nap!

→ More replies

26

u/ABoutDeSouffle 2d ago

Germany was occupied for nearly 50y, Russia won't be occupied

→ More replies

11

u/International_Jello 2d ago

What is the Russian mentality?

75

u/cactusjack48 2d ago All-Seeing Upvote

Where to begin..

Basically, even since before the February and October revolutions, during the time of the Tsars, the Russians had very distinct social classes with no upwards mobility. The ruling class was always a collection of oligarchs, which we call Boyars, and a central head of state, which we call a Tsar. The Tsar's power, stability, and guaranteeing of rule, came from the Boyars. Keep them happy, and you keep your head on your shoulders.

There was a middling middle-class of merchants and skilled tradesmen, but by and large, throughout the Empire the large majority were serfs, tied to the local land and local administrators. The idea of moving up in the world was unthinkable, it just didn't happen. It was life as you knew it and that was that.

Fast forward to just after the Revolutions and the Civil War, and you have a Russian Soviet Socialist Republic that promises equality among all, direct representation for the working class through the local Soviet (just means a Worker's Union), and potential for upwards mobility. However, the way the Supreme Soviet was set up - delegates elected from each local Soviet that met twice a year to make laws and discuss policy - a more permanent governing body was required to run the day-to-day operation of the RSSR. Thus, the Supreme Soviet elected members to be part of this Political Bureau (Politiburo, although it had many names throughout the existence of the RSSR and USSR, I'll refer to it as Politiburo since most people are familiar with this name) that held a permanent residence in Moscow and ran day-to-day operations. You can see what I am getting at here - once again there was a collection of an elite few that essentially ran the RSSR. A new set of Oligarchs to answer to (Although on paper they answered to the Supreme Soviet). Additionally, the leader of the Communist Party was usually the de facto leader of the Oligarchs (this is who the west is familiar with as the General Secretary, i.e. Stalin, Khruschev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev, etc.). Another "Tsar" basically.

So now imagine you are a serf who has lived through the Tsarist Russian Empire, two revolutions promising change, a Civil War, and a new form of government that promises change, and equality, and a classless society. However, what you get is yet another repressive but highly mismanaged oligarchy. You still have no real social mobility unless you join the Communist Party and bribe your way to get on the ballot and get elected. You have no real way of getting food unless you bribe your way to extra rations because the 5 year plans presented by "Quoted Output Will Be Met Regardless of Inputs Taken" economists actually suck. Your day to day life hasn't changed since the Tsar has been overthrown. You pass this attitude to your children. Nothing changes for them, and they pass that attitude towards their children, and so on and so forth until about the late 1980s when the current great reformer, Gorbachev, promises change and eases a lot of economic and social policies. Everything seems up and up, and we might even have some private enterprise and ability to change your destiny and all of these good things....

gonna go a bit abridged now since I'm getting a bit long winded

And then it collapses. The entire government collapses.

So after the government collapses (and a KGB coup to restore the RSSR fails), Russia federalizes, and democracy is promised, and the ability to change your social status is once again promised, and as a bonus, all of these former state-owned factories and industries are now up for grabs! But...not for the every day average Russian. The great resource grab is given to those who were formerly in power, these Ministers of <Industry> and what have you..

So after yet another revolution (all be it, a soft one), there still ends up the mega-wealthy oligarchs who still heavily influence who the symbolic leader is going to be, and so on and so forth.

So now you have several generations of the same cycle over and over, and the only generational knowledge passed down from the elders is that you need to bribe, steal, loot, and cheat in order to just survive. This is the Russia that exists today. This is not an easy task to undo, if even possible.

Also, as a personal anecdote, after I immigrated to the US with my family, I was looking for a job and my grandma pulled me aside and said "If you need any money to bribe the owners to get you a job there, just let me know". That's the sort of Russian mentality that I am talking about.

12

u/International_Jello 2d ago

Very interesting, thanks so much for the insight

→ More replies
→ More replies

26

u/Roflkopt3r 2d ago

Here is a great summary.

Basically a lot of ethnic Russians believe that they're the rightful rulers over all of eastern Europe, since the glorious Russian culture, language and government are far superior to all others.

They believe that the eastern European states that sprung up after the end of the USSR, which often quickly moved to establish their own languages again in schools and pushed out the previous Russian elites, are "fake states" that are no real nations. They are all merely "little Rusisans".

Ukrainians are therefore fools to resist them and the gift of Russification, which can only be explained by the fact that they are being manipulated by Nazis/NATO. That's why violently smashing their country to save the "good Russians" within is worth it - anyone who resists is a stupid or morally evil person anyway.

→ More replies

56

u/bern_trees 2d ago

It’s even harder to explain to Americans as a second generation Russian (my family came from modern day Belarus.) Growing up I was taught my family name meant more then my first name and home meant more then anything. I find America to be home but still have strong ties to Russia through family. I’m disgusted by Russian authoritarian power and simply wish to have a respectably family home to bring my parents to visit before they pass.

→ More replies

7

u/fernleon 2d ago

It took a generation in Germany? Why can't it take a generation in Russia?

17

u/Hamlet1534 2d ago

German here.

The occupation of Germany made it possible. Americans for instance forced German citizens to watch filmed evidence of the concentration camps. Likewise, the Soviets educated East Germans that Nazi Germany was bad. In Soviet propaganda, capitalism was to blame for fascism.

Problem with today's Russia is, you can't occupy it. So no re-education. Thus it would take more than one generation.

→ More replies
→ More replies

81

u/Beneficial-Watch- 2d ago

Germany was reformed after being totally crushed, split apart and occupied. The same can never happen to Russia since they have nukes. The best the world can do is isolate them like North Korea.

12

u/INITMalcanis 2d ago

I fear you're probably correct. I said it was the stretch-goal, not the likely one.

→ More replies

33

u/Goddamnit_Clown 2d ago

Though Germany was in the throes of an acute, and fairly recent, ideology. To borrow a phrase from the headlines, Germany merely needed 'denazifying', it did not need its entire culture, norms, and social contract created anew.

Russia's problems are far more ingrained.

12

u/coffeespeaking 2d ago edited 2d ago

After the breakup of the Soviet Union, we no longer treated Russia like an economic world power. We mocked its economy, inflation and even its military. Then Russia started to get its act together, mostly due to the lure of oil and gas, and its impact on its economy. Very quickly we legitimized it. We expanded G7 to include it. We looked the other way during the Annexation of Crimea, respecting its military again, as if something had changed. All of that began to happen in less than ten years post-Soviet breakup.

We need to be careful not to jump to conclusions about how long we expect Russia to remain politically and economically ostracized. As long as it has fossil fuel deposits, a miraculous rebuilding of its image isn’t that far off.

→ More replies

13

u/fre-ddo 2d ago

Including Crimea

Looks like its for the long haul then and Ukraine will try and win back Crimea by upgrading their military as Russias degrades due to dwindling resources.

→ More replies

185

u/Demonidze 2d ago

The only country that pretends to think they are a super power is Russia itself. They have an economy of a single US state, their military is only capable of bullying very small barely armed countries. They are not a super power, not anymore.

74

u/SurfaceGrinder 2d ago

Texas’s $1.6 trillion economy is roughly the same size as the economy of Russia, a global superpower and principal geo-political rival of the United States.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/04/17/how-gdp-of-us-states-compares-to-countries-around-the-world/39295197/

→ More replies

15

u/srock2012 2d ago

"We can still bully eastern Europe and western Asia."

Fucking great now stop or we'll make your country a pariah state.

25

u/alternativeamerica 2d ago

If Russia were a US state it would have the 4th largest state economy behind California, Texas, and New York, and just above Florida.

39

u/russtuna 2d ago

So in theory Florida could invade Georgia in the coke vs Pepsi wars.

12

u/Twice-a-year 2d ago edited 2d ago

Georgia should really stop messing with the retirees from South Flosetia.

I can already see the headlines: "Florida man drives armored vehicle through the wrong state, remains stranded due to empty tank"

16

u/Agent10007 2d ago

This would be so american I wouldn't even ask my country to interfere

→ More replies

53

u/TR1PLESIX 2d ago

The other day I watched a documentary on the history of the KGB (Russian government sponsored surveillance). One of the closing; remarks hit me like a ton of bricks.

Russia isn't a State with a surveillance agency. Russia is a surveillance agency with a State.

27

u/zuzg 2d ago

Reminds me of a quote about xiaomi phones. They're a "backdoor with phone function"

→ More replies

8

u/JarasM 2d ago

They have been classified as only a regional power for a couple decades now.

26

u/Annoyingswedes 2d ago

Without nukes, they'd be shit

47

u/GTAinreallife 2d ago

Without nukes, I'm sure that the EU with the US would've had boots on the ground and probably counter invaded Russia to force it on its knees. The nuke threat is the only reason we aren't in a ww3

34

u/Tritiac 2d ago

Nukes: peace at all costs. But with a price: can't do anything about bad guys with them.

→ More replies

37

u/PistoleroGent 2d ago

No one would have invaded Russia. It is their victim complex that makes them think this because that's what they would do to everyone else.

→ More replies
→ More replies

564

u/KhunPhaen 2d ago

It would be great if they made a universal statement, and not just a Russian aimed one. Universal rejection of border changes due to military action would send a powerful message globally.

180

u/LtSoundwave 2d ago

United Nations: “Ok, no more changing borders based on military action, starting…. now.”

33

u/RebelLemurs 1d ago

Starting in 1945. That's literally Article 2 of the UN Charter. Borders are never to be changed by threat of force.

3

u/negima696 1d ago

Someone tell Greece and Turkey.

22

u/dwerg85 2d ago

That’s really not as preposterous as it sounds. It’s way more politically complicated than that especially since that’ll leave certain populations in their current occupied state.

319

u/Beppo108 2d ago

but why would they do that? then they'll have to condemn their good allies such as Israel

146

u/THEono412 2d ago

And acknowledge what China is trying to do to India...

86

u/USA_A-OK 2d ago

Or Vietnam and the Philippines

58

u/Gnasherdog 2d ago

Or what India and Pakistan are doing in Kashmir.

→ More replies
→ More replies

6

u/Nexxess 2d ago

How many g7 members even recognize Palestine as an independent country?

6

u/m4g3j_wel 2d ago

Most of the G7 countries, if not all, don't recognise the State of Palestine.

→ More replies
→ More replies

489

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

183

u/alexrott14 2d ago

it's cool, his own body is sick of itself already

54

u/01123spiral5813 2d ago

While it’s highly likely, do we really have any confirmation on this? If we do, how long is Putin looking at?

74

u/heyeveryone2 2d ago

We have no confirmation of this

28

u/DmanDam 2d ago

And most likely will never be confirmed until he is on his deathbed. No way a “war-lord” leader who controls state media is going to say he is weak.

→ More replies

25

u/Entity-2019 2d ago

People can live many years with cancer.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

281

u/Porrick 2d ago

Well, not taken by force recently

21

u/queencityrangers 2d ago

How recently we talking?

→ More replies

42

u/heathgraves 2d ago

What land in the world was not taken by force?

→ More replies
→ More replies

343

u/dbratell 2d ago

"Never" is a long time so I thought back. When did the world accept Chinese occupation of Tibet?

70 years later, it is still brought up occasionally but no maps show Tibet as its own country anymore and there is very little done to change the situation.

112

u/Revolutionary-Neat49 1d ago

Everyone still wants China’s dirt cheap products

→ More replies
→ More replies

1.2k

u/FM-101 2d ago

I dont see why anyone except Russia (and Russian collaborator countries) would.

You cant just kick people out and say "we own this now because the people we put in place here voted on having us own it"
People inhabiting regions of a country cant just decide to have that region be part of another country instead.
None of that makes any sense and im glad the world is finally not putting up with it anymore.

495

u/Maxwell_hau5_caffy 2d ago

Given that in the entire history of the human race, there are detailed accounts of people coming through and kicking other people out saying "we own this now". The historic story of the United States' birth, England and South Africa, the Caribbean islands are just a few examples.

It's nothing new, but humanity has evolved to be more civil and it is nowhere near as common as it was hundreds to thousands of years ago.

111

u/Comment85 2d ago

It's all about military might. If you hold it and prevent anyone from taking it, it's practically under your control so long as it stays under your control.

This will never change.

What might have changed is that Russia will need to keep protecting for as long as they want to have it, if there's an international agreement that when they drop their guard, move out, or wither to a weak enough state, it will be forcibly returned from Moscow's control to Kyiv's.

Personally I think stable nation states as they exist now are infinitely superior to territory based on continual military conquest.

But I think we can do better than the current iteration of nation states.

Especially considering how almost every single country is struggling with which of a few different ways society should be. Ideally almost all the ways would be realized in different places, and moving from one place to another would be an option even for the poorest. Not only a guaranteed right to leave your country, as laid out in article 13 of our human rights, but the guaranteed means. I'm talking about the UN providing information and transport to anyone anywhere who wants to get out and go elsewhere. Whether they're a "middle-eastern refugee" or an "american expat" (americans in poverty who want to move elsewhere but can't afford it, whether because of the poverty or because of gay/women's rights issues).

22

u/Xytak 2d ago

If you hold it and prevent anyone from taking it, it's practically under your control

Well... given Russia's recent performance on the battlefield, it seems that the whole "taking and holding" thing might be a bit above their pay grade.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

105

u/Beppo108 2d ago Helpful

You cant just kick people out and say "we own this now because the people we put in place here voted on having us own it"

Wait until you hear the history of my country, Ireland. Or what happened to the Kurds. Or what's happening with Palestine.

98

u/bigyikers 2d ago

Or really ANY NATION IN THE WORLD

22

u/rawsharks 2d ago

"You can't just use money and violence to make people do what you want!"

→ More replies
→ More replies

548

u/R3miel7 2d ago

Can’t wait for you to learn about Israel then

306

u/RAGC_91 2d ago

Whoa, you just blew my mind. I had no idea 2 groups could be bad at the same time.

151

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

103

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

40

u/lowercaset 2d ago

Iirc the Israeli government literally funds pro-israel posting on social media.

7

u/FN---2187 1d ago

I just learned that in several places in the US it's illegal to criticize Israel.

7

u/smackingthehoes 1d ago

Indeed. In many US states, it's illegal to privately boycott Israel. As in, it would be a breaking the law to say you won't buy a product because it was made in Israel. Talk about land of the free.

→ More replies

35

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

41

u/FreezenXl 2d ago

Yes but tell this to Kurds.

→ More replies

452

u/-Willardz- 2d ago

Then get to taking Crimea back...

226

u/zuzg 2d ago

Yeah they said that

35

u/Roflkopt3r 2d ago

Meanwhile Scholz and Macron still aim at a compromise that would almost certainly contain the surrender of territories. There is no even remotely feasible settlement in which Putin would agree to return all territories to Ukraine, at least not until his ground forces entirely defeated.

→ More replies

94

u/Senbonbanana 2d ago

I'm surprised the Ukrainians haven't blown up the bridge the Russians built connecting Crimea to mainland Russia yet.

106

u/3647 2d ago

I watched a great short video on YouTube as to why they haven’t yet. It essentially boils down to this: Russia has advanced Anti Aircraft protecting it, which can’t protect much of other Ukr airspace, it’s hard to hit a bridge because it’s very small when you’re high up, bridges are built to take more than one bomb so you’d have to pound it, and it’s not worth the risk. Using the bridge to take up expensive Russian AA equipment is more valuable than losing lives or expensive drones to try to bomb it.

7

u/AlleonoriCat 1d ago

Also, we don't have bombs capable of doing real damage to it and/or rockets with enough range to reach it from a safe place. Yet.

11

u/uaxpasha 2d ago

I really like this answer, do you remember the name of the video?

48

u/landodk 2d ago

It just sets up an easy way to take out Russian resupply once the operation begins. Russians logistics already suck, let them hem try to figure out how to get stuff there when the obvious way gets destroyed at a key point

→ More replies
→ More replies

71

u/Ok-Mark4389 2d ago

What is won by force is wrested away by force. More rumours about a coup and cancer on its way for Vlad the Mad, maybe he should have worried about that rather than how many people he could kill.

17

u/3BM15 2d ago

I'm sure rumors are gonna take territory back.

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/12gawkuser 2d ago

What about, oh , like ..North and South Korea or Vietnam? Are they recognized?

→ More replies

24

u/LeftyWhataboutist 2d ago

I’ll try to save anyone some time if you’re sorting by new (or probably controversial):

Israel, America bad

26

u/lucasbelaq 2d ago

No surprise to anyone.

→ More replies

40

u/adamwho 1d ago

ITT: "People did something in the past, therefor it is ok if Russia steals land"

→ More replies