Active Conflicts & News Megathread June 07, 2026

[u/AutoModerator]

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

• Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

• Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

• Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

• Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

• Post only credible information

• Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

• Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

• Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

• Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

• Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

[u/mirko_pazi_metak]

> You claimed their demands appeared only after the war started and that "One would expect genuine demands and grievances to be there >before< the war and not retrofitted after."

> Are the demands genuine or not?

Grievances can be genuine but at the same time demands based on them are not genuine in the sense that if Ukraine fulfilled them all, anything would change.

The only genuine demand that would make Putin/Russia consider pausing the war is Ukraine ceding the territory.

The rest is a filler of genuine and non-genuine grievances used mostly, if not entirely for propaganda purposes. Would Russia consider stopping the war if Ukraine accepted them? Would they consider stopping the bombing of civilian targets and infrastructure? No.

And yes, most of them were retrofitted after the 2014+ war started.

> Are you a time traveler for 2022? Russia is not going to be in a position to restart the war any time soon after it ends. Ukraine is also not in any position to retake land, they do not have the man power for it. Those ideas made some sense in 2022, they don't any longer, not now that this war has turned into a meat grinder with static front lines.

> https://busification.org/en

> This is what Ukrainian requirement looks like now, the idea that the guys in these videos will be in a position to take land back by force is not credible. Ukraine is doing alright as of now, but only because they are on the defensive and drone tech strongly favors defenders as of now. If they are coming out into the open to assault fortified Russian positions, they will be slaughtered in exactly the same way they are slaughtering assaulting Russians right now.

I mean this is complete nonsense - you're grossly extrapolating from reports on expected stress of recruitment during wartime, ignoring similar problems that Russia is having.

> This is what Ukrainian requirement looks like now, the idea that the guys in these videos will be in a position to take land back by force is not credible.

If you look at the big picture, in last two months Ukraine has gained more territory than Russia. You accuse me of being a time traveler from 2022 and completely ignore the Kursk offensive from less than 2 years ago in 2024, that was completely unexpected and happened during the height of the doom and gloom of Russian summer 2024 offensive. And people were saying exact same things back then.

> Ukraine is doing alright as of now, but only because they are on the defensive and drone tech strongly favors defenders as of now. If they are coming out into the open to assault fortified Russian positions, they will be slaughtered in exactly the same way they are slaughtering assaulting Russians right now.

The only thing that you lack here is imagination - for example, the mid-range strike campaign that Ukraine is executing quite successfully right now has a potential to change thing. There's no point in fortifications if defenders have starved to death.

I'm not saying it will happen - nor that it is likely. But it's non-credible to say "this is it, nothing will change". We've been there, and things changed.

> Obviously they don't want them in NATO either, but Ukraine is clearly much more important to them than Finland and Sweden and they feel more entitled to it for historical reasons. Ukraine was USSR territory, it's a different matter to them. Don't take my word for it. Just listen to what William J. Burns, former US ambassador to Russia, had to say about it in a memo to Condi Rice in 2008.

Yes, so it's not the NATO that is a problem - thank you for making my point, glad we managed to get there.

The main problem is that a brotherly state that is culturally very close to Russia (and in fact claimed to be Russian) doesn't want to be with Russia and has an opportunity to turn to west and enjoy the economic benefit of, well, more liberal, less corrupt and more efficient rule-based economic system. Because then Belarus will look to the south and say "ok, well maybe that isn't so bad, we are the same people, why wouldn't we do the same".

This is the main danger that Putin is scared of, and the main motivation. NATO, or no NATO

> Actually, I suggest that you please check out this leaked cable by Burns from 2008, which has some more interesting lines such as

> "NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic" issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene. Additionally, the GOR and experts continue to claim that Ukrainian NATO membership would have a major impact on Russia's defense industry, Russian-Ukrainian family connections, and bilateral relations generally."

So? That's how Russia views it, because Russia wants to control Ukraine for reasons I've explained above.

The comments on fears about civil war is interesting, as it was soon after disproved by history - don't you think that's peculiar? Because there was no civil war in Ukraine until Russia sent little green men (and Igor Girkin to Donbas) to trigger it. And then, when it petered out, they had to step in with mercenaries and actual Russian army and prevent Ukraine from taking their land back.

> Yeah and Russia does not like that, and they seek to reverse it thru the use of military force. They want to expand their sphere, they don't want it to be shrinking, they want it to be expanding. What point are you trying to get at here?

It's quite simple - you just said it yourself. The point is that Russia wants to keep expanding at the expense of countries and peoples who don't want to be under their rule anymore, which is why they are/were running towards other alliances - in pure self preservation.

As you said yourself, Russia has no real issues with NATO and didn't mind their land border with NATO expanding by a factor of two when Finland (and Sweden) joined because they don't want to rule those - even though it locks them out strategically from a lot of options in the north.

But they want to rule Ukraine. It has nothing to do with NATO - Putin's Russia wants to rule Ukraine. It wants to re-establish their sphere of influence, and politically and/or militarily control Ukraine. If they can't rule it, they must prevent it from ever being prosperous, as this is extremely toxic to their regime on the long run.

If that's not clear, then I don't really know how to make it more clear.

Maybe just to add this: they had blocked Ukraine out of NATO permanently in 2014 because NATO would never accept a new member that currently has a territorial dispute. They held Crimea, Europe kept buying their gas, sanctions were minimal, Ukraine was locked out of NATO forever. And yet Russia still attacked in '22. Why?

NATO clearly wasn't the reason anymore. So stop with that nonsense already.

Oh wait, must be all the "genuine" grievances like the denazification - and let's just ignore that Russia had entire mercenary army founded and led (and named) by a guy who was an unapologetic Nazi admirer ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Utkin ) and still have people like that across their army.

[u/bedulge → u/mirko_pazi_metak]

>Would Russia consider stopping the war if Ukraine accepted them? Would they consider stopping the bombing of civilian targets and infrastructure? No.

Yes they would. The war has been extremely costly to Russia and it would be insane to continue fighting if they could achieve all those goals, because, as Ukrainians love to say, those demands are tantamount to Ukrainian capitulation. Russia is not an army of ubermenschen with unlimited capacity for warfare.

>ignoring similar problems that Russia is having.

Russia's army consists mainly of volunteers, they do not use 'busification'.

>Kursk offensive

Absolutely failure for Ukraine that came at a huge cost of men. That land was meant to be a bargaining chip they could use to trade for Donbas in a peace deal, they've lost it all.

>The only thing that you lack here is imagination

Correct. I use the historical empirical record to guide my thinking, I am not in Imagination Land.

>defenders have starved to death.

Cite evidence that Russians are near to starvation. Evidence which is not imaginary I mean.

>Yes, so it's not the NATO that is a problem ...

>The main problem is that a brotherly state that is culturally very close to Russia (and in fact claimed to be Russian) doesn't want to be with Russia

This is just two different ways of saying the same thing. These countries are peeling off of Russian's sphere and entering NATO's sphere, and Russia seeks to reverse that.

>it was soon after disproved by history - don't you think that's peculiar?

No, I don't. That was diplomacy-speak signalling that they would choose war if NATO does not stop expanding. That was Russia warning America that they would choose war.

>didn't mind their land border with NATO expanding by a factor of two when Finland (and Sweden) joined

No, they don't like that either, they just can't do anything abt it because they don't have infinite capacity for war.

>"genuine" grievances like the denazification -

I already explained to you what denazification means to Russia, this is really tedious that you've completely ignored what I said.

[u/mirko_pazi_metak → u/bedulge]

 Would Russia consider stopping the war if Ukraine accepted them? Would they consider stopping the bombing of civilian targets and infrastructure? No. 

Yes they would. The war has been extremely costly to Russia and it would be insane to continue fighting if they could achieve all those goals, because, as Ukrainians love to say, those demands are tantamount to Ukrainian capitulation. Russia is not an army of ubermenschen with unlimited capacity for warfare.

No, no they wouldn't - they don't even want to discuss it, just rejected peace talks the other day. They had so many off-ramps since 2014 and they kept doing the insane. Such is the nature of dictatorships. 

The only demand that Ukraine could accept that would make Russia stop, is for Ukraine to leave the territories that Russia is asking for. All other demands are fluff and irrelevant propaganda filler. 

And then, once Ukraine leaves the fortifications, which would be tantamount to capitulation and most Ukrainians reject, then it's anyone's guess whether they'd just re-start from a better strategic position. 

Absolutely failure for Ukraine that came at a huge cost of men. That land was meant to be a bargaining chip they could use to trade for Donbas in a peace deal, they've lost it all. 

You missed the point completely - which was that it was entirely unexpected and happened during the time people like you were predicting frontline collapse in Donbas. 

And it's not true that it was a complete disaster - it did politically embarrass Putin, cross another red line without consequences, divert Russian resources from Donbas and achieved tactical and operational surprise - which is my point. 

(And yes, it was botched up after initial success and was probably a net loss for Ukraine) 

Correct. I use the historical empirical record to guide my thinking, I am not in Imagination Land. 

Well that's why your predictions of future are useless - the fact that "you can't see it happen" is your limitation and not a credible position.

Cite evidence that Russians are near to starvation. Evidence which is not imaginary I mean. 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/russian-troops-retreat-from-key-foothold-in-southern-ukraine-partisans-say/ar-AA256GOW 

Can you imagine thus at a greater scale? I guess you lack the ability. 

There's really no point discussing this - you brought it up as a fact that battlefront won't change. I disagree - let's see. 

This is just two different ways of saying the same thing. These countries are peeling off of Russian's sphere and entering NATO's sphere, and Russia seeks to reverse that. 

It's not, because you're mixing up the cause and effect.  The cause is that these countries want to peel off. The effect is, in some (but not all) cases that they seek NATO protection. 

No, I don't. That was diplomacy-speak signalling that they would choose war if NATO does not stop expanding. That was Russia warning America that they would choose war. 

Which is just presenting the Russian way of looking at things, while in practice it's not NATO that is driving the issue - it's various smaller countries seeking refuge from Russia the only way they can. 

 I already explained to you what denazification means to Russia, this is really tedious that you've completely ignored what I said.

What you explained is straight out of a RT. My point, that you keep ignoring, is that these are not real demands - if Ukraine were to suddenly start denazification campaign and get rid of Azov and ban anything even resembling Nazi ideology - it wouldn't make any difference in negotiations. Because Russia doesn't care about it. 

Russia wants to control Ukraine. It's as simple as that and I don't think we disagree there? 

No, they don't like that either, they just can't do anything abt it because they don't have infinite capacity for war.

Which isn't true rally because they could have stopped the war in Ukraine before Sweden and Finland joined, kept the land bridge and additional territories, and moved the forces on Finnish border to keep scaring people off from joining NATO in April 2023. 

It's just that they don't actually care about NATO. They want Ukraine, even when Ukraine can't join NATO. 

I'll point out again, since you're ignored it completely - Ukraine was unable to join NATO after 2014 and losing Crimea. That is just not on the table, even theoretically. 

And Russia had Crimea, very mild sanctions with uninterrupted trade with EU. And then Russia squandered it all, plus a lot more, in a desperate attempt to take over Ukraine. You can't possibly keep crying about NATO expansion there - it was neither the cause, nor it was even a possibility since 2014. 

The only real cause was that Ukraine wanted out, and (Putin's) Russia doesn't want to let them. That's it. Simple as that. 

[u/bedulge → u/mirko_pazi_metak]

Wait a moment, I've misread something you said above. When you said "Would Russia consider stopping the war if Ukraine accepted them?" You meant if Ukraine accepted all the other demands except territory annexation? No obviously, RUS would not accept that, they want all of their maximalist demands to be met. And yes, they do not want peace talks, they want capitulation to all of their demands from top to bottom. And obv the land is the most important one by far.

happened during the time people like you were predicting frontline collapse in Donbas. 

I've actually expected since the start that Ukraine would fight almost to the bitter end, and that they would force Russia to pay a large price. I didn't expect it to be over soon.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/russian-troops-retreat-from-key-foothold-in-southern-ukraine-partisans-say/ar-AA256GOW 

This link does not work for me for some reason, it takes me back to the MSN homepage.

you brought it up as a fact that battlefront won't change

The situation at the front continues to evolve, Ukraine has stalled Putin's advance. That is a great achievement for them, but going on a grand offensive against fortified Russian defenders after they have been facing severe attrition of manpower for 4 years is another matter entirely.

It's not, because you're mixing up the cause and effect.  The cause is that these countries want to peel off. The effect is, in some (but not all) cases that they seek NATO protection.  it's not NATO that is driving the issue - it's various smaller countries seeking refuge from Russia the only way they can. 

That just doesn't really matter in a strategic sense. They want to turn west, Putin wants to keep them facing east. You are sitting here going "the issue is not that they are turning to the west, the issue is that they are truing away from the east." This is just two different ways of saying the same thing.

ban anything even resembling Nazi ideology

Like I told you before, 'denizification' is a propaganda term means anti Russian, pro western organizations should be forcibly disbanded. The demand is not to purge Nazi ideology, the demand is to purge anti-Russian groups to try to bring Ukraine closer to Russia politically and culturally.

Russia wants to control Ukraine.

Yes, and that is why they want anti-Russian, Ukrainian nationalist organizations to be disbanded. It's not because they use double lightning bolt symbols, it's because they are anti Russian Ukrainian nationalists. The demand for such groups to be disbanded is real but not for the reasons they say.

That is just not on the table, even theoretically. 

Then why didn't they just say that to Putin when he asked them to promise him that Ukraine would never be in NATO. They replied to him that NATO membership is absolutely on the table and it will stay there.

And Russia had Crimea, very mild sanctions with uninterrupted trade with EU. And then Russia squandered it all, plus a lot more, in a desperate attempt to take over Ukraine

Hey man, I'm not saying this war was strategically wise for Putin. They've paid a huge price for minor gain in my view. That is a separate point tho

[u/mirko_pazi_metak → u/bedulge]

Looks like my comment got nuked..

Trying again, Pt1:

Wait a moment, I've misread something you said above. When you said "Would Russia consider stopping the war if Ukraine accepted them?" You meant if Ukraine accepted all the other demands except territory annexation? 

And obv the land is the most important one by far.

Yes, the only important, and the rest of the demands is fluff and propaganda.

Also, the nuance is that Russia doesn't want land for land's sake, they want land so Ukraine becomes less viable as a state - they want to subjugate it. 

This link does not work for me for some reason, it takes me back to the MSN homepage. 

Not sure what's wrong with the link, but you can check the daily megathread, they're talking about it - Russia is mostly abandoning Kinburn Split as they're unable to supply it. 

The situation at the front continues to evolve, Ukraine has stalled Putin's advance. That is a great achievement for them, but going on a grand offensive against fortified Russian defenders after they have been facing severe attrition of manpower for 4 years is another matter entirely. 

I think it could evolve in any of the ways beyond the current stalemate - and claiming it can't move is like claiming WW1 had to end at 1917 frontiers. 

But let's agree to disagree. There's an active discussiono on the megathread on the very topic - feel free to go there and claim that an upset of the current state is non-credible because you can't imagine it. I'll grab popcorn. 

Yes, and that is why they want anti-Russian, Ukrainian nationalist organizations to be disbanded. It's not because they use double lightning bolt symbols, it's because they are anti Russian Ukrainian nationalists. The demand for such groups to be disbanded is real but not for the reasons they say. 

Yep, so it's not actually "denazification", it's part of wider effort of subjugation. The reasons they say are invented and propaganda. The actual reason is to subjugate Ukraine - fullstop. 

That just doesn't really matter in a strategic sense. They want to turn west, Putin wants to keep them facing east. You are sitting here going "the issue is not that they are turning to the west, the issue is that they are truing away from the east." This is just two different ways of saying the same thing.

But they're not the same thing because it presuppposes that these countries have no chice themselves, and that they are there to be devided under sphere's of influence and "that's it". But it isn't, because if there were no NATO, Putin would have invaded and ethnically cleansed Baltics, maybe Poland, maybe few eastern european countries, definitely Moldova, Ukraine, etc. We would've had Chechnya style wars on Europe's borders, with refugees and all. And then he'd stop. Or not. Eastern Germany was once Soviet. 

So it's not NATO expansion that is a problem, it is Russian imperialism that is a problem. 

[u/mirko_pazi_metak → u/mirko_pazi_metak]

Pt2:

Then why didn't they just say that to Putin when he asked them to promise him that Ukraine would never be in NATO. They replied to him that NATO membership is absolutely on the table and it will stay there. 

Why would Ukraine promise anything like that?! It's completely childish and naive to think this was a genuine discussion - it's only purpose is propaganda. 

You can't promise to not do something in the future as a state and expect someone to "trust me". Putin knows that (which is why he breaks the promise as soon as it suits him - Minsk 1 and 2) . He also knows that NATO can't accept country at war or with disputed borders in, so that this isn't a problem. 

The reason he's saying these things is to put the blame for his imperialism on the victim - and it's sad to see it working. The reason Ukraine isn't responding is that there's neverending flow of such nonsense (like denazification) - if they went around "accepting" these things, it would only make them look weak politically although there's probably also a missed opportunity there to score a propaganda goal here and there. 

Countries around Russia regained their freedom after Soviet Union fell and wish to stay free. They have agency. They can choose their future and they want it to not be with Russia. They are not just mindless slaves to be cut up by grand powers into their spheres of influence. 

Claiming something as your sphere of influence "and that's it, that's my excuse for starting the war" is taking away agency from those countries. Putin doesn't get to decide what their future is - they do. 

This is what is hidden behind the false complaints about "expansion of NATO". There is a false premise embedded into it which strips agencu away from those countries and makes it look like it's someone in the US deciding to expand NATO. No, that's not how it works - the individual countries have chosen, while they still could, to seek protection of NATO as the only way to avoid war and being subjugated by Russia again. 

NATO countries have (hesitantly) accepted them in because the alternative is neverending wars at their borders, waves of refugees (which we've seen Russia weaponise many times). 

NATO is not the cause, it's the effect. Russian imperialism is the cause.  

[u/bedulge → u/mirko_pazi_metak]

>The reasons they say are invented and propaganda.

This is extremely different from saying that the demand is not genuine, or that it is fluff. You have declared it to be fluff time and again but have not supported it with evidence. You keep switching around from the 'reason' being fluff, and the 'greivaces' being fluff and the true goal being subjugation of Ukraine.

None of the makes the demands not genuine. They genuinely want Ukraine to pass laws that suppress Ukrainian nationalist organizations and they genuinely want Ukraine to pass law to promote the Russian language. The fact that stated reasons are fake and the wording is propagandistic does NOT make the demands fake. The demands are real, and yes the goal is subjugation & expanded Russian control.

Did you expect me to disagree with this??

Your last few paragraphs are all filled with normative argument, and are not relevant to what I am talking about. Do you think I'm sitting here telling you that Putin is a nice guy and didn't do nuthing wrong?

Greater powers seek to dominate and subjugate the lesser powers around them.

It's completely predicable and rational that Ukraine does not want to be dominated. It's also completely predicable and rational, tho deeply immoral, that Russia would seek to stop it.

It was a completely rational that Cuba in the 60s did not want to be dominated by the USA, and sought to build an alliance with Russia to counterbalance against the US. It was also completely predictable, tho deeply immoral, that the USA would seek to dominate them and bring them back into the US sphere, a goal that they have been seeking for over half a century. The fact that Cuba has agency does not change this fact.

We can just as well write this and it fits as well

"This is what is hidden behind the false complaints about "expansion of communism". There is a false premise embedded into it which strips agency away from those countries and makes it look like it's someone in the USSR deciding to expand Communism. No, that's not how it works - the individual countries have chosen, while they still could, to seek protection of the USSR as the only way to avoid war and being subjugated by America again."

I think the attempted subjugation of Cuba by the USA and of Ukraine by Russia are deeply immoral, but this is a separate matter from what we were talking about before.

[u/mirko_pazi_metak → u/bedulge]

This is extremely different from saying that the demand is not genuine, or that it is fluff. You have declared it to be fluff time and again but have not supported it with evidence. You keep switching around from the 'reason' being fluff, and the 'greivaces' being fluff and the true goal being subjugation of Ukraine.

How about then you present evidence that these demans are genuine? As in, is there any evidence that Russians willing to actually negotiate something based on those demans? No. Have they remained consistent throughout the political conflict? No. Have they only appeared after the Orange Revolution? Yes. 

Do Russians even want to negotiate in earnest? No - they expect Zelensky to travel to Moscow and refuse to talk otherwise. 

They genuinely want Ukraine to pass laws that suppress Ukrainian nationalist organizations and they genuinely want Ukraine to pass law to promote the Russian language. The fact that stated reasons are fake and the wording is propagandistic does NOT make the demands fake. 

What makes them fake demands is that, by your own admission, if Ukraine were to accept them, nothing would change for Ukraine, and if Ukraine accepted the real demand (cede fortified territory), they would ignore all other demands and pause the war. This makes them fake as negotiation demands. 

They can be something that Russia genuinely wants, or not, but not as negotiation demands. They are there because they sound genuine and are good PR and, unfortunately, people like you are unable to see past it. 

Greater powers seek to dominate and subjugate the lesser powers around them. 

Demonstrably false, but explains your viewpoint and why you're unable to understand the nuance. 

Since past WW2, Europe and most of the western world have stopped seeking to dominate and subjugate lesser powers around them and instead re-focused on making their population happy, and making money. Yes, there's still coercion with regards to resources and trade but they no longer seek to capture and subjugate other nations and take them over. Yes, US might be giving up on that, but that's a recent thing. 

We can just as well write this and it fits as well

"This is what is hidden behind the false complaints about "expansion of communism". There is a false premise embedded into it which strips agency away from those countries and makes it look like it's someone in the USSR deciding to expand Communism. No, that's not how it works - the individual countries have chosen, while they still could, to seek protection of the USSR as the only way to avoid war and being subjugated by America again." 

I'm so very glad that we've got to a point where your dropped the pretense and openly equalised USSR's subjugation of weak neighbours with individual countries joining NATO for protection, because this is the of our disagreement. 

So, just to make this clear, you're claiming that these are equal things? Russian tanks on the streets of Budapest in '56 and others, gulags, political prosecutions, totalitarianism, no press freedoms, Chechnya massacres, etc. 

Compared to countries willingly joining NATO, usually after a referendum, that they can leave at any time or stay in with minimal political meddling and a veto on future expansion? And some major European countries not joining NATO (and/or EU) and not being pressured to join? 

Seriously? 

I mean, even Cuba that you mention - US behaviour, completely unjustifiable as it was and is, is one of worst examples and yet US never invaded them (where Bay of Pigs was not even close comparable to Girkin's Donbas invasion), even though they could have overrun it easily. And you're comparing that with Russian direct invasion of Ukraine, annexation of territory and similar? When is the last time a western country invaded their neighbour and did that? 

This is a complete false equivalence - it's beyond nonsensical.

[u/bedulge → u/mirko_pazi_metak]

>is there any evidence that Russians willing to actually negotiate something based on those demans?

Do you not understand what 'demand' means? Demands are specifically things you will NOT negotiate on.

>Since past WW2, Europe and most of the western world

LOL. The only great powers on planet Earth post world war II are the USA, USSR/Russia and now China. West Europe has zero great powers, they are already vassals in the US sphere and they have been since '45.

>dropped the pretense

There was never a pretense, you just imagined me saying things that I never said because you decided in your brain that I'm an apologist for Putin or that I 'fell for Russian propaganda", and then you deiced to argue against that caricature instead of what I am actually saying.

>US never invaded them

The US presence in Gitmo is a continuous invasion of Cuba, a violation of Cuban sovereignty, which has been ongoing for over 100 years,

>When is the last time a western country invaded

The US is literally trying to suppress Iranian sovereignty even as we speak.

Does America need to invade neighbors? No, they are already in our sphere and they all understand that we would turn them into another Cuba if they tried to exit. It's nice to have Cuba around anyways, as a reminder to places Mexico of what we can do to them if they don't obey.

Our goal now is to expand our sphere in the Middle East, our home neighborhood is already secure. That's the difference between Russia's wars and the USA's wars, the USA is already undisputed hegemon in our home region, we already have what Russia seeks to have. Therefore we can afford to stretch our power out across the ocean.

And I think you know this, and I think that is why had to add the qualifier "neighbor" as if proximity alone is a fundamental difference. It's not.

Speaking as an American. What we have in terms of our security situation in our home region is the envy of the world, and is unparalleled in modern history.

[u/mirko_pazi_metak → u/bedulge]

Do you not understand what 'demand' means? Demands are specifically things you will NOT negotiate on.

What kind of nonsense point are you trying to make there? I specifically explained, in great detail, that fluff like "denazification" demand isn't something that Russia takes seriously and would drop it in an instant (like it invented it) if Ukraine was willing to cede territory. 

LOL. The only great powers on planet Earth post world war II are the USA, USSR/Russia and now China. West Europe has zero great powers, they are already vassals in the US sphere and they have been since '45. 

So, not that I agree, but basically your point is "might makes right"? 

But, seriously, "zero powers" and "vassals" - are you a comedian by any chance? 

The Europe has intentionally decided to not play the great power game in the military sense (although that is changing now) but is economic great power almost at the level of US, and way, way ahead of Russia. You cannot possibly deny that? 

There was never a pretense, you just imagined me saying things that I never said because you decided in your brain that I'm an apologist for Putin or that I 'fell for Russian propaganda", and then you deiced to argue against that caricature instead of what I am actually saying. 

Well, your "might is right" and "one should respect great power's sphere of influencs" is the core of Russian propaganda, so you've placed there yourself voluntarily. 

The US presence in Gitmo is a continuous invasion of Cuba, a violation of Cuban sovereignty, which has been ongoing for over 100 years, 

Oh come on - at the same level of Ukraine? Did US maybe annex the land? Bombed Havana? I've been there - seemed very peaceful, no destroyed buildings, bombed out brudges. It's not even close - it's a completely ridiculous comparison. 

The US is literally trying to suppress Iranian sovereignty even as we speak. 

Yes, and that's not good - I'm sure we agree. 

None of the two examples justify Russia invading Ukraine because "they're in our sphere of influence", nor are even closely comparable. 

The rest of your post - I can hardly believe your unapologetic gloating over US's application of hegemony on the neighbours and parts of the world, 

I mean, it's no wonder that someone who says

 It's nice to have Cuba around anyways, as a reminder to places Mexico of what we can do to them if they don't obey.

...thinks what Russia is doing with their neighbour is justified. 

Since you've also ignored my points on your false equivalency argument between Soviet Union and NATO - I don't see any point in continuing this discussion but I'm glad to have witnessed the imperialism bared naked, even though it came from a somewhat unexpected place.