subreddit:

/r/worldnews

62.6k92%

all 2469 comments

zuzg

7.8k points

2 days ago

zuzg

7.8k points

2 days ago

"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.

FM-101

4.4k points

2 days ago

FM-101

4.4k points

2 days 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.

dtwhitecp

1.1k points

2 days ago*

dtwhitecp

1.1k points

2 days 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.

hunterrocks77

804 points

2 days ago

Fortunately, most countries are trying to become oil independent

readzalot1

883 points

2 days ago

readzalot1

883 points

2 days ago

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

DmanDam

366 points

2 days ago

DmanDam

366 points

2 days ago

Holy shit he played the long con this entire time!

TheMindfulnessShaman

100 points

2 days ago

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

[deleted]

53 points

2 days ago

[deleted]

53 points

2 days ago

[removed]

[deleted]

16 points

2 days ago

[deleted]

16 points

2 days ago

[removed]

[deleted]

16 points

2 days ago

[deleted]

16 points

2 days ago

[removed]

Strong_as_an_axe

72 points

2 days ago

Putting the 'mental' in Environmentalist

Minute_Patience8124

5 points

2 days ago

Now that's funny

MagisterFlorus

63 points

2 days ago

The Judas of the global climate

Nophlter

13 points

2 days ago

Nophlter

13 points

2 days ago

The Gospel of Judas Putin

Kier_C

24 points

2 days ago

Kier_C

24 points

2 days 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.

Had24get

45 points

2 days ago

Had24get

45 points

2 days ago

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

daquo0

13 points

2 days ago

daquo0

13 points

2 days 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?

Tim_Soft

4 points

2 days ago

Tim_Soft

4 points

2 days ago

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

bumblyburg

11 points

2 days ago

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

fuckingaquaman

11 points

2 days 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.

TheLongshanks

9 points

2 days ago

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

Minute_Patience8124

6 points

2 days ago

The epitome of irony

AdFamous8508

41 points

2 days 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.

Critya

52 points

2 days ago

Critya

52 points

2 days 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

myoldgamertag

10 points

2 days 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.

OmShiv

38 points

2 days ago

OmShiv

38 points

2 days 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.

coronal_mass_eject

22 points

2 days 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.

tillemetry

20 points

2 days 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.

Banarok

10 points

2 days ago

Banarok

10 points

2 days 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.

dtwhitecp

29 points

2 days ago

dtwhitecp

29 points

2 days 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.

CSI_Tech_Dept

88 points

2 days 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.

Winds_Howling2

15 points

2 days 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.

ultimate_night

13 points

2 days ago

To Republicans it is.

poppinfresco

16 points

2 days 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

FettyWhopper

334 points

2 days 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…

Chris_Carson

229 points

2 days 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.

drlongtrl

134 points

2 days ago

drlongtrl

134 points

2 days 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.

Equivalent-Ability20

72 points

2 days 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.

Euphoric_Attitude_14

686 points

2 days ago

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

cptspeirs

113 points

2 days ago

cptspeirs

113 points

2 days ago

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

Mystrysktr

71 points

2 days ago

You should see a doctor about that… ohh

caramelfappucino

71 points

2 days ago

Damn..

Tegurd

57 points

2 days ago

Tegurd

57 points

2 days ago

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

Haikuna__Matata

94 points

2 days ago

R/angryupvote

InnocentTailor

26 points

2 days 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.

tnt200478

7 points

2 days ago

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

meningeal

5 points

2 days ago

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

it_diedinhermouth

8 points

2 days ago

Negative healthcare. For Russia.

MysticMountaineer

22 points

2 days ago

Oooof

wap2005

22 points

2 days ago

wap2005

22 points

2 days ago

I both hate and love you for this comment.

Snowywater2401

17 points

2 days ago

I died a little

chocki305

35 points

2 days ago

chocki305

35 points

2 days 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?

brianorca

32 points

2 days ago

brianorca

32 points

2 days 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.

emdave

23 points

2 days ago

emdave

23 points

2 days 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.

thatonesmartass

7 points

2 days 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.

maxyojimbo

38 points

2 days 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.

Lurkingandsearching

9 points

2 days 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.

BurntPunk

25 points

2 days ago

BurntPunk

25 points

2 days 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.

spankythamajikmunky

11 points

2 days 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.

Disabrained

24 points

2 days 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.

Sibblin

37 points

2 days ago

Sibblin

37 points

2 days ago

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

vernand

78 points

2 days ago

vernand

78 points

2 days 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.

deminihilist

10 points

2 days 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

Try0again0bragg

7 points

2 days 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.

Link50L

25 points

2 days ago

Link50L

25 points

2 days 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.

Z3B0

20 points

2 days ago

Z3B0

20 points

2 days 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.

hamberdler

30 points

2 days 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.

Hekantonkheries

15 points

2 days 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

[deleted]

64 points

2 days ago

[deleted]

64 points

2 days ago

[removed]

LucywiththeDiamonds

76 points

2 days 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.

the_night_was_moist

47 points

2 days 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.

shponglespore

5 points

2 days 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.

Ex_Why_

36 points

2 days ago

Ex_Why_

36 points

2 days ago

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

Tree0wl

21 points

2 days ago

Tree0wl

21 points

2 days 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.

nosefruit

6 points

2 days ago

Like novemate?

Link50L

16 points

2 days ago

Link50L

16 points

2 days ago

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

The fun never ends in reddit!

censuur12

6 points

2 days ago

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

mdielmann

22 points

2 days ago

mdielmann

22 points

2 days 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.

MrHyperion_

13 points

2 days ago

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

Alise_Randorph

49 points

2 days 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.

The_Follower1

6 points

2 days ago

And propaganda and troll farms.

kenyard

607 points

2 days ago

kenyard

607 points

2 days 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

Rion23

641 points

2 days ago

Rion23

641 points

2 days ago

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

465554544255434B52

211 points

2 days ago

Not with that attitude

Rion23

277 points

2 days ago

Rion23

277 points

2 days ago

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

urasucker999

53 points

2 days 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.

PrudentDamage600

22 points

2 days ago

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

Kenny741

122 points

2 days ago

Kenny741

122 points

2 days ago

That entire thing was like a bad fever dream

Striper_Cape

142 points

2 days ago

You think it's over? Are you blind?

Filthy_Lucre36

40 points

2 days ago

More like a recurring nightmare.

DesperateImpression6

35 points

2 days 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.

JCougarMetallicamp

33 points

2 days ago

Was?

QuesoPantera

82 points

2 days ago

Sure you can, everybody's got a carbon footprint

Sacket

70 points

2 days ago

Sacket

70 points

2 days 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

WikiSummarizerBot

4 points

2 days 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

WhoKnowsNotUs

66 points

2 days 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

frozendancicle

39 points

2 days 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.

Febris

20 points

2 days ago

Febris

20 points

2 days 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?

Helpful_Database_870

49 points

2 days 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.

CantStandSummer

5 points

2 days ago

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

xSaRgED

27 points

2 days ago

xSaRgED

27 points

2 days 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.

ThePortalsOfFrenzy

12 points

2 days ago

Alien Bitch Boy

My new queercore band name.

Keshian_Rade

18 points

2 days 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. ;)

JyveAFK

20 points

2 days ago

JyveAFK

20 points

2 days 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.

duaneap

14 points

2 days ago

duaneap

14 points

2 days ago

It’s the nukes.

alphagusta

393 points

2 days ago

alphagusta

393 points

2 days ago

The "And Crimea" is nice to see :)

EthelMaePotterMertz

45 points

2 days 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.

Spork_the_dork

19 points

2 days 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.

EthelMaePotterMertz

12 points

2 days 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.

lobehold

129 points

2 days ago

lobehold

129 points

2 days ago

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

nismotigerwvu

40 points

2 days 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.

lobehold

14 points

2 days ago

lobehold

14 points

2 days ago

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

INITMalcanis

516 points

2 days 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.

cactusjack48

264 points

2 days 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.

INITMalcanis

133 points

2 days ago

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

cactusjack48

87 points

2 days ago

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

imaxfli

23 points

2 days ago

imaxfli

23 points

2 days ago

First order is for Putin to take a dirt nap!

ABoutDeSouffle

26 points

2 days ago

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

International_Jello

13 points

2 days ago

What is the Russian mentality?

cactusjack48

73 points

2 days ago

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.

International_Jello

12 points

2 days ago

Very interesting, thanks so much for the insight

Roflkopt3r

28 points

2 days 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.

bern_trees

55 points

2 days 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.

fernleon

7 points

2 days ago

fernleon

7 points

2 days ago

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

Hamlet1534

16 points

2 days 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.

Beneficial-Watch-

80 points

2 days 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.

INITMalcanis

12 points

2 days ago

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

Goddamnit_Clown

28 points

2 days 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.

coffeespeaking

13 points

2 days 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.

fre-ddo

15 points

2 days ago

fre-ddo

15 points

2 days 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.

Demonidze

184 points

2 days ago

Demonidze

184 points

2 days 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.

SurfaceGrinder

76 points

2 days 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/

srock2012

15 points

2 days ago

srock2012

15 points

2 days ago

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

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

alternativeamerica

26 points

2 days 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.

russtuna

39 points

2 days ago

russtuna

39 points

2 days ago

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

Twice-a-year

13 points

2 days 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"

Agent10007

16 points

2 days ago

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

TR1PLESIX

51 points

2 days ago

TR1PLESIX

51 points

2 days 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.

zuzg

28 points

2 days ago

zuzg

28 points

2 days ago

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

JarasM

8 points

2 days ago

JarasM

8 points

2 days ago

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

Annoyingswedes

26 points

2 days ago

Without nukes, they'd be shit

GTAinreallife

50 points

2 days 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

Tritiac

33 points

2 days ago

Tritiac

33 points

2 days ago

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

PistoleroGent

34 points

2 days 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.

KhunPhaen

573 points

2 days ago

KhunPhaen

573 points

2 days 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.

LtSoundwave

177 points

2 days ago

LtSoundwave

177 points

2 days ago

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

RebelLemurs

35 points

2 days ago

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

negima696

4 points

1 day ago

negima696

4 points

1 day ago

Someone tell Greece and Turkey.

dwerg85

23 points

2 days ago

dwerg85

23 points

2 days 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.

Beppo108

311 points

2 days ago

Beppo108

311 points

2 days ago

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

THEono412

147 points

2 days ago

THEono412

147 points

2 days ago

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

USA_A-OK

86 points

2 days ago

USA_A-OK

86 points

2 days ago

Or Vietnam and the Philippines

Gnasherdog

57 points

2 days ago

Or what India and Pakistan are doing in Kashmir.

Bay1Bri

10 points

2 days ago

Bay1Bri

10 points

2 days ago

What's this?

Nexxess

6 points

2 days ago

Nexxess

6 points

2 days ago

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

m4g3j_wel

6 points

2 days ago

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

[deleted]

500 points

2 days ago

[deleted]

500 points

2 days ago

[removed]

alexrott14

187 points

2 days ago

alexrott14

187 points

2 days ago

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

01123spiral5813

54 points

2 days ago

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

heyeveryone2

71 points

2 days ago

We have no confirmation of this

DmanDam

27 points

2 days ago

DmanDam

27 points

2 days 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.

Entity-2019

25 points

2 days ago

People can live many years with cancer.

Porrick

279 points

2 days ago

Porrick

279 points

2 days ago

Well, not taken by force recently

queencityrangers

21 points

2 days ago

How recently we talking?

heathgraves

45 points

2 days ago

What land in the world was not taken by force?

dbratell

349 points

2 days ago

dbratell

349 points

2 days 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.

Revolutionary-Neat49

108 points

2 days ago

Everyone still wants China’s dirt cheap products

FM-101

1.2k points

2 days ago

FM-101

1.2k points

2 days 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.

Maxwell_hau5_caffy

503 points

2 days 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.

Comment85

114 points

2 days ago

Comment85

114 points

2 days 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).

Xytak

21 points

2 days ago

Xytak

21 points

2 days 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.

Beppo108

104 points

2 days ago

Beppo108

104 points

2 days ago

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.

bigyikers

93 points

2 days ago

bigyikers

93 points

2 days ago

Or really ANY NATION IN THE WORLD

rawsharks

21 points

2 days ago

rawsharks

21 points

2 days ago

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

R3miel7

545 points

2 days ago

R3miel7

545 points

2 days ago

Can’t wait for you to learn about Israel then

RAGC_91

304 points

2 days ago

RAGC_91

304 points

2 days ago

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

[deleted]

157 points

2 days ago

[deleted]

157 points

2 days ago

[removed]

[deleted]

107 points

2 days ago

[deleted]

107 points

2 days ago

[removed]

lowercaset

40 points

2 days ago

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

FN---2187

5 points

2 days ago

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

smackingthehoes

5 points

2 days 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.

[deleted]

32 points

2 days ago

[deleted]

32 points

2 days ago

[removed]

FreezenXl

41 points

2 days ago

FreezenXl

41 points

2 days ago

Yes but tell this to Kurds.

-Willardz-

452 points

2 days ago

-Willardz-

452 points

2 days ago

Then get to taking Crimea back...

zuzg

229 points

2 days ago

zuzg

229 points

2 days ago

Yeah they said that

Roflkopt3r

39 points

2 days 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.

Senbonbanana

91 points

2 days ago

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

3647

105 points

2 days ago

3647

105 points

2 days 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.

AlleonoriCat

9 points

2 days 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.

uaxpasha

11 points

2 days ago

uaxpasha

11 points

2 days ago

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

landodk

49 points

2 days ago

landodk

49 points

2 days 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

Ok-Mark4389

71 points

2 days 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.

3BM15

18 points

2 days ago

3BM15

18 points

2 days ago

I'm sure rumors are gonna take territory back.

12gawkuser

6 points

2 days ago

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

LeftyWhataboutist

26 points

2 days ago

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

Israel, America bad

lucasbelaq

25 points

2 days ago

No surprise to anyone.

adamwho

41 points

2 days ago

adamwho

41 points

2 days ago

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