[sedan_baklazhan]

"Rules-based international world order" consists of just two rules:

1. The Western countries (basically meaning USA makes the decision) may attack any country.

2. Other countries may not defend themselves nor attack any country.

Iraq, Iraq (several separate agressions on Iraq, that is not a typo), Afghanistan, Cuba, Serbia, Libya, Sirya, Venezuela... the list goes on, Venezuela is of no particular significance here.

[gloosx]

Whatever coutry has the most firepower you mean.

Hungary, Chechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia, Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Moldova, Georgia, Tajikistan, Ichkeria, Ukraine, Syria... The list goes on

[merpkz]

Lithuania?

[gloosx]

Lithuania fought two distinct wars with Soviet Union, both conflicts involved USSR attempts to control the Baltic region and establish communist rule.

[vladd]

Where does Russia's attack of Ukraine fits within this?

[worksonmine]

If you're genuinely curious dig into the protests 2014, who won the election, who asked her supporters to take to the streets, and what has she been advocating for for a long time before.

It's all about Crimea and the black sea fleet and pipelines. Every time the same conflict, as Orwell put it: We've always been at war with Eurasia.

Edit: Instead of down-voting, tell me where I'm wrong. All of the facts are public information and you won't even have to leave Wikipedia.

[anonymars]

I'll bite: speaking for myself, I can't figure out what point you are trying to make

First sentence says to look up 2014 protests and "her" supporters, second sentence says "it's" about the Black Sea and Crimea. Third sentence "we've" always been at war with Eurasia

Maybe fill in the blanks for us?

[worksonmine]

> First sentence says to look up 2014 protests and "her" supporters, second sentence says "it's" about the Black Sea and Crimea

Yulia Tymoshenko (pro-West), she urged her supporters to take to the streets when the pro-Russian candidate won the election. For a long time she wanted to withdraw from the Russian/Ukrainian deal that the Black Sea Fleet could be in Crimea until 202? (can't remember the exact year right now).

When those protests erupted Russia (unofficially) sent forces to protect their interests, Crimea. The conflict then escalated to the invasion.

> Third sentence "we've" always been at war with Eurasia

We as in the West, are always at war with the east. We want a world order where we are at the top of the food chain and we'll stop any attempt to rise. If we're going to prosper the rest of the world has to remain as cheap labor.

Look into any conflict this and the previous century and you'll see the same pattern. It's always been a game och risk between the East and the West.

One interesting thing to look into is which countries along the Russian border are not Nato members. Correlate this to where there has been pro-Western protests and even coup attempts in the last decade.

The world is run by psychopaths and they have most of their populations living in ignorance of how geopolitics actually work. My most important principle in life is to judge "my side" harder. Russia and China don't have to be our enemies, but a country is easier to run if there's an external threat. And that's why Oceania in Orwells' 1984 is always at war with either Eurasia or Eastasia.

It's a big subject and it's difficult to summarize in a comment, that's why I listed a few questions to look into. I can dump facts and events all I want but the best thing one can do is to look into these conflicts themselves and find the patterns. It's always about who's allied with who, and who's extracting the resources. Gas/oil/minerals/power.

We were fine with Saddam (that we put in power in the first place) trying to exterminate the kurds, but mention leaving the petrodollar, oh no you didn't.

[anonymars]

Thank you for the clarification. Given that the current context is comparing Ukraine to Venezuela, and Venezuela's opposition leader is a woman and there were protests in 2014, I had no idea you were talking about Tymoshenko.

[ivan_gammel]

According to West, not allowed. However, the West does not exist anymore, and we have two different ideological camps within it. According to USA, it’s bad, but it did not hurt American interests, so a good deal is possible. According to EU, foreign policy of which is hijacked by Baltic right, it is still not allowed, but… Deep currents indicate that as soon as it’s done with formal condemnations, it is desirable that business will resume as usual.

[def_true_false]

You might want to look into opinion polling on Russia in the Baltics or Finland. The idea that only the right considers Russia a threat is ridiculous.

[ivan_gammel]

There’s massive propaganda effort painting the picture of imminent invasion, so opinion polls are naturally reflecting that. I doubt that there was ever a reason for Finland to worry about it. It’s just a convenient narrative for politicians, mainly on the right. But I was not saying that it’s only right leaning voters think this way. Just pointed out that we have Kallas as head of EU diplomacy and few other vocal politicians from Baltic right wing parties, and they are fixated on Russian threat, which is necessary for their political survival.

[the-smug-one]

> Deep currents indicate that as soon as it’s done with formal condemnations, it is desirable that business will resume as usual.

What deep currents are those? As a European situated close to Russia, I do not feel that this is the case.

[ivan_gammel]

Plenty of European businesses still operate in Russia or have set up their exit for easy return via Dubai legal entities. Also Belgium fiercely resisting confiscation of Russian assets etc.

[the-smug-one]

>Also Belgium fiercely resisting confiscation of Russian assets etc

Isn't this literally them not wanting to be left holding the paper bag?

What businesses are doing, I don't know, I am more aware of what states are doing. What're your thoughts on the expansion of military expenditure? Let Ukraine die, keep ourselves defended?

[ivan_gammel]

> Isn't this literally them not wanting to be left holding the paper bag?

It’s telling that they consider this a possibility. If EU wanted it, they could protect Belgium. But anticipation of business as usual means that whoever distances from such decisions better, will do better.

„Let Ukraine die“ decision was made in 2022, when NATO chose not to engage directly and not to switch to war economy, rapidly scaling production of military equipment and supplies. In NATO vs Russia war, Russia had no chances, but it quickly became Ukraine vs Russia war with token Western support, where Ukraine has no chances in the long term. As for increase in military spending, it’s necessary, but whatever is done, is insufficient. It is barely enough for containment of Russia, and EU needs independent operation in Middle East and Africa, pushing out USA from the region (whatever America does there, always ricocheting on Europe, so they should be denied action without approval of allies)

[majgr]

> nor attack any country

It is not like citizens of Iran decide to attack Israel or like sponsoring terrorist orgs attacking Israel. I am not sure if Russians freely vote in referendum to attack Ukraine. These decisions are made by despots ruling these countries and then their citizens suffer. Either they die in trenches or suffer economic misery. What for? China too can live without Taiwan. Chinese people do not need to have another island belonging to their country. Only despots wants to have statues raised after them, or write their names in history books, because all other things: Power, Money, Sex they already have.

[int_19h]

It's true that Russians didn't vote to attack Ukraine. Nevertheless, the invasion had broad popular support at the beginning.

[gloosx]

>the invasion had broad popular support at the beginning.

According to whom?

You should understand that public opinion surveys in authoritarian countries are problematic. In autocracies, people might want to hide their opinions and give socially desirable answers that conform to the official government position for fear of facing repression or deviating from the consensus view.

[int_19h]

According to my own relatives, friends, and acquaintances in Russia, where I'm from. You don't need to tell me about "hiding opinions". The majority support is regardless of all that, though.

[gloosx]

This is a ridiculously small sample to tell me that "the invasion had broad popular support at the beginning". It had a broad support in your own circles and you casually extrapolated it to the whole population.

According to my own relatives, friends, and acquaintances in Russia (where I'm from) – no one supports or ever supported in the beginning the total idiocracy which is happening.

[wiseowise]

> I am not sure if Russians freely vote in referendum to attack Ukraine

They sure as hell didn't protest much when Russia occupied Crimea and started war in Eastern Ukraine.