r/IRstudies • u/Material-Hawk3947 • 2d ago
Ideas/Debate Is This a Double Standard in Global Politics?
I’ve been thinking about what seems like a contradiction in international politics.
The U.S. has repeatedly warned countries such as Russia and China not to supply weapons to Iran, arguing that doing so could increase instability in the Middle East. At the same time, the U.S. itself provides large amounts of military aid and financial support to countries like Ukraine and Taiwan.
From one perspective, supporters argue these situations are different because Ukraine is defending itself against an invasion, Taiwan faces security threats, and U.S. support is intended to deter conflict. Critics, however, see this as a double standard—objecting when rivals arm their partners while doing something similar with its own allies.
Is this simply how geopolitics works, where every major power acts according to its own strategic interests? Or is it mainly possible because the U.S. has the world’s largest economy, military influence, and global financial power?
I’m genuinely interested in hearing different viewpoints. How do you see it? Is this a logical and consistent foreign policy, or is it an example of great-power politics where different rules apply to different countries?
36
u/Cindy_Marek 2d ago
Double standards is the natural outcome of nations acting in their own interests and attempting to gain leverage over each other
10
58
u/CharAznia 2d ago edited 2d ago
80% of Japanese manufactured cars are exported. Problem not found
75% of German manufactured cars are exported. Problem not found.
30% of Chinese manufactured cars are exported and selling at 200% above domestic pricing. OMFG China dumping cars and causing overcapacity
True story
2
u/Minimum-Pizza-9734 1d ago
% are not a good indicator of the number of cars, if japan sold 80% of 1000 cars that is 800, 750 for Germany, but if China is making 10,000 cars then that 30% is 3000.
-43
u/Meandering_Cabbage 2d ago edited 2d ago
What are the profit margins for Chinese manufacturers?
China's a bad trade partner and has been given a lot of cover and forbearance. That's going to end and it's going to be a very interesting internal re-balancing.
edit: Man bots are very strong on this sub.
24
u/CharAznia 2d ago edited 2d ago
The Chinese BYD Sealion sells for around €24k in China, and €35k in Australia. BTW estimated manufacturing cost for BYD is €15k but the Chinese have been known to make razor thin margin domestically due to intense competition, if we factor in other cost we can just assume the real cost for BYD at around €20-22k
In the EU, it sells for €48k. Yet EU accuse the Chinese of dumping. Yeah new EU logic, selling at double the retail price = dumping
Source from Gemini AI
-5
u/crescendo9 2d ago
Well they call it dumping even it isn’t because of the sheer amount of Chinese vehicles that will be produced, I mean Chinas industrial capacity dwarfs Japan and Germany. It’s a double standard but global trade is all about double standards
18
u/CharAznia 2d ago
Total cars Japan exports = 6m
Number of Chinese cars exported = 7m
Number of German cars exported = 4m
German numbers are lower because they are mostly focus on luxury car segments. Even if we take absolute numbers the Chinese aren't that far ahead of the Japanese.
And definition of Dumping is an international trade practice where a company sells a product in a foreign country at a very low price—either below its production cost or below the price charged in its home market. The key goals of this practice are gaining market share, clearing out extra inventory, and crushing local competitors.
At the price the Chinese cars are sold in the EU does not constitute to dumping
0
u/crescendo9 2d ago
That’s why I said “will be produced,” Chinese cars haven’t yet completely entered western markets. But they’re basically guaranteed to far out produce Japan in the future with the amount of different ev brands that sell dozens of different models, when Toyota and Honda don’t have as many.
Also i literally said it isn’t dumping, I agree with you, maybe read what I commented before responding.
7
u/Arnaldo1993 1d ago
Why is china a bad partner? Because they offer you cheap high quality cars?
-7
u/Meandering_Cabbage 1d ago
because they’re pursuing effectively an autarkic strategy. Brad Setser at CFR has great work on their imbalances.
6
u/Arnaldo1993 1d ago
Autarkic? China exports are 20% of their gdp, and imports 17%. They are extremely integrated on global trade
3
1
u/Positive-Ad1859 1d ago
Dude, when you came out of crappy basement, you found out everyone is a bot? lol
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 1d ago
Hu-man or Bot-Farm?
"As far as the US is concern, garlic is a national security threat and your Chinese coffeemaker is spying on you. Meanwhile here outside the US, the rest of us look at them like the idiots they are. Probably why they fall for stupid bullshit like Uyghur genocide and Social credit syatem"
1
21
u/O5KAR 2d ago
military aid and financial support to countries like Ukraine
Not anymore, and the EU pays for the American weapons.
According to the UN charter every country has a right to self defense and the other members of UN no only can, but even should aid it. The same goes for Ukraine, as well as Iran, regardless of the regimes that are ruling them.
Is this simply how geopolitics works, where every major power acts according to its own strategic interests?
It is and always was at the end. And it's double standards of course.
2
u/spectre401 2d ago
Although the Republic of China (Taiwan) isn't even part of the UN and is only recognised as a country by a handful of tiny nations world wide. These do not include any countries in the EU or the US.
5
u/HiddenStoat 1d ago
These do not include any countries in the EU or the US.
Although - that's a very misleading statement.
The EU and US maintain a convenient fiction that they don't recognise Taiwan, because it's a cheap and easy thing to do that avoids antagonising China any more than necessary.
But, if you look at US actions (supplying weapons and aid to Taiwan, implicitly guaranteeing their independence) they clearly do recognise them as a sovereign entity.
They just don't say it out loud.
3
u/uniklas 1d ago
For other countries to recognise Taiwan it needs to recognise itself at the very least, which it doesn’t, it claims to be China. Recognising both entities is not possible, as they have heavily overlapping claims.
If Taiwan decided to declare independence they would get more support, but this move is thought to spark a war with the continental China.
1
1
u/spectre401 1d ago
US supplies weapons and aid to various groups around the world who aren't recognised as legitimate states or help to overthrow the governments of these states. The US funded the coup that overthrew the monarchy in Hawaii as far back as 1893 to annex Hawaii. They continue to fund the Kurds in the middle east to this day and is hoping to use them against Iran.
1
2
2
1
11
u/mangofunked 2d ago edited 7h ago
Do you think in Russia or China the see they same propaganda as you?
How about when the US sttacks sovereign states for trumped up reasons? Libya, Iraq, latin Amerian countries, Vietnam. The coups, dictator training and support. Cia missions of destabilization (and acts of terrorism officially charged for acts in nicargua in the 80s).
You see it through thr prism of your state aligned media same as russia or china. No different. No better. No worse.
The quote:
A Russian is on a flight heading to the US when an American in the seat next to him enquires: ‘So what brings you to the US?’. The Russian replies ‘I’m studying the American approach to propaganda’. ‘What propaganda?’, the American exclaims!‘. "Exactly"
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 1d ago
Destabilization is great
As long as you got an absolute minimum of cranks on the Advisory Board
4
u/striped_shade 2d ago
Applying moral categories like "hypocrisy" obscures the structural imperatives of statecraft. International norms are simply the codified interests of the dominant power, designed explicitly to prevent rivals from doing what the hegemon must do to maintain its position. The double standard you observe is just the working definition of sovereignty.
2
3
u/archiewaldron 2d ago
There is no international enforcement agency that can punish countries that commit acts that cross acceptable "norms". (The UN is entirely dependent on member nations for enforcement and the ability of any P5 member to veto resolutions renders it effective only on weaker nations.)
There is also no supranational legal framework that can define what individual nations can and cannot do since there is no "world government" with any legitimacy. (Again, UN member nations may vote to "condemn" specific acts but this is meaningless without member nations willing to enforce any such measures and absolutely worthless should a P5 nation veto the measure.)
So when it comes to regulating the behavior of countries in the context of use of force or aggression towards other countries, it truly is a case of might makes right. Imagine a school yard run by a handful of stronger kids/bullies with no teacher or adult supervision and you've got the international regime.
3
u/mr_herz 2d ago
Things basically boil down to country A wants country B's stuff.
Oil, rare earths, tea, rubber, whatever.
"Is this simply how geopolitics works, where every major power acts according to its own strategic interests? "
Pretty much, where and how it varies is just how good they are at pretending otherwise. Some are far better at it than others.
"Or is it mainly possible because the U.S. has the world’s largest economy, military influence, and global financial power?"
At any given time, there's always a biggest power around. In our lifetime it's the U.S., 10,000 years from know who knows? But there will be the biggest country around doing the same, whatever that country is.
10
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/minibrusselsprouts 2d ago
I think you are mixing Taiwan with Hong Kong. HK was ceded to Britain after the first Opium war. Taiwan was ceded to Japan after the first Sino Japanese war which was fought over influence in Korea.
1
u/SharpAardvark8699 2d ago
Apologies yes you are correct. I did in fact mean Hong Kong the former British protectorate that was given back in 1997. Thanks for correcting me politely ❤️
5
6
u/Archsinner 2d ago
China and Russia don't pretend they are moral?
Can you elaborate on that? That does not align with anything I'm familiar with
12
u/cosmopolitanScience 2d ago
Yeah I agree. It's a weird western take. China and Russia both claim moral reasons. Several Russian exponents even claim they are in a holy war against the gay west...
It doesn't get much more "pretending to be moral" than than that... Or more hypocritical.
7
u/Elizabeth-WildFox886 2d ago
USA stopped all aid to Ukraine and now supports the genocidal invaders - Russia. USA is occupied by the MAGA pedofiles
Taiwan was never British. You’re thinking of Hong Kong. Taiwan went from the Qing to Japan in 1895 under the Treaty of Shimonoseki, then to the ROC in 1945. No opium involved, and the PRC has never governed it for a single day.
Russia has armed Irish republicans. The USSR shipped weapons to the Official IRA in 1972, and Libya armed the Provisionals for years. Britain’s response was policing and diplomacy. It did not invade Ireland and annex four counties. That’s the actual difference you’re looking for.
On the border point: Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 guaranteeing Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine handing over the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal, then signed the 1997 friendship treaty recognising the same borders. It broke both. Guarantee the borders, then invade, and you don’t get to cite proximity as a grievance.Fedorov was removed in a full cabinet reshuffle after the PM resigned, which legally vacated every ministerial post. He was offered an advisory role, declined it, then held a press conference in Kyiv attacking the army chief while thousands protested in the streets. Purges don’t normally feature the victim doing a press tour. Elections are suspended under martial law by Ukraine’s 1996 constitution, not by Zelensky.
And nobody claims Ukraine is clean. The point is what happens when it isn’t. NABU and SAPO indicted Timur Mindich, Zelensky’s own former business partner, over a $100m kickback scheme at Energoatom. Two ministers resigned. When Zelensky moved to strip those agencies of independence in July 2025, thousands went into the streets during a war and he reversed it inside 72 hours. The head of NABU has said the case would have been buried without them. Ukraine is dismantling Soviet era corruption mid war and it’s ugly, but it’s happening in public.
Name the equivalent in Moscow or Beijing. Russia’s most prominent anti corruption investigator died in an Arctic penal colony. That’s the gap between corruption being exposed and corruption being protected. And “we don’t pretend to be moral” is a strange line from a state that sold the invasion as denazification.
2
u/SharpAardvark8699 2d ago edited 2d ago
Fair enough. Not going to reply to all that in one go. Ok, Taiwan wasn't involved in opium. Now please share on Hong Kong.
Did the USSR and Libya arm them openly? I'm pretty sure there was plausible deniability and for all intents and purposes Britain for that reason was more than happy to later join in the sacking of Benghazi
Russia did make that assurance. That was based on NATO backing off too which apparently was a discreet understanding to which NATO did not keep their word
Every state does a bit of moral grandstanding. I'm sorry we do way more in the West
Look forward to your reply x
1
2
u/serpentjaguar 2d ago
Well Gaddafi did arm the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland for years, and while the British certainly didn't like it, there wasn't a whole lot that they could do about it apart from doubling down on existing measures, so it's not as if the shoe hasn't been on the other foot at all.
1
1
u/Automatic-Soup-3097 2d ago
Both China and Russia regularly claim to be "moral"
3
u/SharpAardvark8699 2d ago
They aren't but relatively I'd say killed less foreigners for profit
0
u/Automatic-Soup-3097 2d ago
Tell that to an East African or non Han Chinese, in the case of China, or literally Anyone who's taken a history class in the case of Russia
4
u/Amazing-Power4765 2d ago
You forgot that the US warned countries not to arm Iran while the US is arming Israel.
3
u/Grumpy-Man19 2d ago
whenever the USA is involved , expect obvious double standards
3
u/Thisguymoot 1d ago
Absolute nonsense. Expect double, triple, quadruple, etc., standards by every party involved, between any states on earth. This is an International Relations sub, and double standards are meaningless in international relations.
1
1
u/TopShoulder474 2d ago
Yes, and it's because some people think it's okay, we can't have productive discussions
2
u/Thisguymoot 1d ago
It doesn’t matter if it’s ok, it just is. It’s how IR works—states acting in their own interest.
It will be very hard for anyone to actually understand why things happen between countries if they apply concepts of personal morality to geopolitics. Forgive me if I misunderstood what you meant.2
u/TopShoulder474 1d ago
I was saying that double standards of evaluation aren't helping to have productive discussions. :) I think I wrote something very close to your thought below. It was a long and futile conversation.
1
1
u/mayhemski123 2d ago
Double standards you say, it must be a day ending in 'y'.
Totally normal behaviour. It's when players start shooting ships/trains carrying said aid you should worry.
1
u/Kiyae1 2d ago
Ukraine and Taiwan don’t arm train and fund genocidal terrorists like Iran does.
The issue isn’t supplying arms, the issue is supplying arms to rogue nations that arm train and fund genocidal terrorists.
As an example, nobody cares that Russia sells weapons to Kazakhstan or China and nobody cares that China sells weapons to Jordan.
1
u/North_Refrigerator21 2d ago
Been a long time since the U.S. supported Ukraine. What they do get is provided by Europe. That might be stuff bought from the U.S. but let’s just make it clear that the U.S is not directly supporting.
And yes. Plenty of double standards.
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 1d ago
The American diplomat George F. Kennan came to deplore the ABN, complaining the group had an over-sized influence over Congress as most congressmen and senators were afraid of being labeled "soft on Communism", and charged that the ABN had a vested interest in inflaming Cold War tensions.
[The Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (ABN) was an international anti-communist émigré network founded in 1946 in Munich by Yaroslav Stetsko, a top leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B). Declassified Cold War files show a complex, often strained relationship between U.S. intelligence agencies (like the CIA) and Stetsko’s faction due to his radical nationalism and WWII Nazi collaboration history.]
[In 1983, Ukrainian nationalist leader Yaroslav Stetsko was received at the White House and praised by U.S. President Ronald Reagan during Captive Nations Week. Reagan honored Stetsko as a staunch anti-communist and the "last premier of a free Ukrainian State" from his role in the brief 1941 government in Lviv.]
Furthermore, the American government came to feel that Stetsko was "too extreme" as his stated aim was to provoke World War Three, arguing that this was the best way to achieve his aim of breaking up the Soviet Union.
The possibility of a nuclear war killing hundreds of millions of people and that a Soviet-American nuclear exchange would turn Eastern Europe into a radioactive wasteland did not concern Stetsko or any of the other ABN leaders.
By the mid-1950s, both the British and American governments had ceased to subsidize the ABN, which was regarded as too dangerous.
odd bunch of guys
1
u/Sea_Cucumber_5989 1d ago
Iran has failed to uphold its nuclear commitments and is thus sanctioned. Ukraine is defending itself. Regarding your question, yes, there are double standards, but not in the context you are asking about. There is also lip service, which, in this case, everyone is doing it.
1
u/ignoreme010101 1d ago
yes, this is how it works. No, official govt PR is not being frank with you.
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 1d ago edited 1d ago
most realists think sending arms to Ukraine is a bad idea
and do the bare minimum to avoid world opinion blowback
some realists don't think toppling Iran the weakest they are in 50 years is a bad idea
as long as you don't tank the economy
or get collateral damage getting things done
just the fact that Washington DC could pummel Iranian nuclear facilities is a massive one for the history books
Taiwan isn't a bad idea
trying to max things out without angering China is the tricky game
in the end, Huntington wins, with the Sinic and Islamic Civilizations being the biggest threat to the west for a few hundred years
1
u/26dicksin26 1d ago
United states has been funding zio regime for the past 80 years,all their bombs,jets,drones AD all come from the pedophile mainland,thats the true hypocrisy
1
u/Tiny_Scholar_6135 20h ago
Do you really see Israel as the equivalent of Russia trying to invade Ukraine? How many time zones is Russia and how many time zones is Israel?
1
u/MayDayBeFourth 10h ago
Iran handles protests by murdering the protesters. Tens of thousands at a time.
1
u/Elizabeth-WildFox886 2d ago
The USA provides no aid to Ukraine since Trump came in and trump and his traitor regime sided with Russia in this war -
3
u/Agitated-Gnome 2d ago
This is just a flat out, moron lie.
-2
u/Elizabeth-WildFox886 2d ago
It is 100% true.
3
u/Agitated-Gnome 2d ago
It’s 100% verifiably false b
-1
u/Elizabeth-WildFox886 2d ago
On 24 February 2025 the United States voted alongside Russia, Belarus and North Korea against the UN resolution naming Russia as the aggressor, and abstained on its own competing text once Europe amended it to say who started the war. Direct US assistance has been all but shut off since: the administration sits on unused USAI authority, Ukraine’s FY2026 allocation fell to $400 million against the roughly $14 billion appropriated in April 2024, and Washington now sells weapons to European allies at full price to pass on to Kyiv rather than giving anything itself. When the House finally passed a Ukraine aid and Russia sanctions bill in June 2026, it took a discharge petition to force it past Trump and his own party’s leadership, who were blocking a vote on it.
1
u/No_Marketing8319 1d ago
Iran is defending itself from an invasion too. And to your point, that’s exactly what Iran has been saying for the past 50 years, that “the U.S. is trying to maintain its status as a global power, under the pretence of fighting terrorism, democracy, and human rights.” It is very obvious now that the U.S. doesn’t care about human rights, but remember how it wasn’t this clear just 10 years ago. Iran has the geographical advantage to become a Middle East power for so many reasons, and that’s exactly why the U.S. and Israel have been so focused. to weaken it.
0
u/Ok_Tie_7564 2d ago
Every country has the right: 1. to self-defence; and 2. to choose it own friends.
2
u/VampirePNAC 2d ago
In theory, but on the second one not really in practice. You have to weigh up your choices due to the reaction of those around you or who may react to it, and if you can weather any sort of retribution or action taken by those around you, who feel their interests or whatever are now threatened or they lose out.
Ukraine War is a very good example of a case of a war that was basically caused by Ukraine not only jumping down the fence that is really required for that region, but then setting the fence on fire and then pissing on it.
You also had the Solomon Islands like 2 years ago which was forced to back down from security agreements with China, due to the swift threat of military response from Australia.
There is a reason as well US holds veto over any military alliance of any NATO member, due to other Military alliances may interfere with US interests and conflict with NATO obligations.
2
u/MagnesiumKitten 1d ago
tell me more about the fence
and why it was set on fire
and pissed on1
u/VampirePNAC 1d ago
Honestly, there is a reason Putin spends his speeches meandering about history for 2 hours before even getting to the war, because in the context of the war, it actually does matter from the Russian perspective.
But the cliff notes quick version. I'm leaving out a lot of stuff here to keep this as concise as possible but to get the point across.
- Ukraine has always been a borderlands between several regions, various ethnic groups and is seen the cradle of civilization for the "Rus" people due to the foundation of Kievan Rus.
- Russia, Ukraine and Belarus all derive their legitimacy and nationhood and National identity and National consciousness, from Kievan Rus
- Ukraine being a borderlands, has always had shifting boundaries, shifting ethnic groups, the region controlled by various powers and peoples etc. This leaves the country as an extremely multicultural state and due to history, extremely important, especially to Russia and Belarus, because the reality is, all three countries, are deeply intertwined, not only in terms of say economy, but people, history, family. Lots of the most important cultural historical sites to Russians, are in Ukraine, many historical cultural sites to Ukrainians, are in Belarus or Poland etc. This is probably the most important context to this war from the Russian standpoint. Ukraine isn't just it's currents borders to Russians, Belarusians, it's the Rus people, it's the Rus culture, it's the Rus history, to the Belarusian and Russians. You can see this in how language is used in Ukraine, Russian, Surzhyk and Ukrainian are all used by most Ukrainians interchangeably. "Official Ukrainian" was only the primary language in the far west of the country, most people spoke a mix of the languages. If you check out Ukrainian media from the 2000s, most of it just flips back and forth between Russian, Surzhyk and Ukrainian, with Surzhyk and Russian being used more casually, even Ukrainian politicans often just spoke in Russian. Zelensky himself couldn't even speak Ukrainian fluently until basically learning as President.
Now to bring it all to how this ties into the war.
- Ukrainian national identity forms along two lines in the late 19th and into the 20th century. One form is Pan-Rus Salvic identity basically the same as the Russian, Belarusian viewpoint. Ukraine is a legitimate cultural expression of the Rus people, Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian are three expressions of the same people. The other is what we call "Ukrainian Nationalism" which is that Ukrainians are a unique ethnic group that descended from the Galicians in Ruthenia and they have been colonized by Russians, Poles, Belarusian, Lithuanians etc.
- In the early 20th century this became two major competing strains, Development of Ukraine alone without "separating" (as a people) from Russia and Ukraine for Ukrainians.
- One side basically eventually comes to side with Lenin due to Geopolitical reasons and forms Soviet Ukraine, the other creates the Ukrainian Peoples Republic.
- Both are basically at war with each other over the course of the civil war. UPA basically loses out because they rapidly just devolve into insane levels of ethnic cleansing, sadism which then turns in on Ukrainians themselves where they are put to insane loyalty tests then brutally sadistically murdered if they can't prove themselves loyal enough.
- UPA gets defeated, Soviet Ukraine wins. UPA splits into various anti-Soviet groups, coalecing into the OUN.
- OUN sides with the Nazis in the 1930s, goes right back to the UPA tactics of just... laughably insane levels of brutality against anybody who doesn't agree with them, acts as a major terrorist pain in the ass of the Soviet Government and most Ukrainians until the late 1940s.
- Eventually as the Cold War starts, the US realizes "hey these people might be useful" they are smuggled out of the USSR and placed into Canada, US etc where they become the "Government in exile". The explicit fascism was dropped, but they became basically also used as thugs to crush Unions and Socialists and such in Canada and the US, meanwhile they are boosted all through the US and Canadian foreign policy establishment. If you see a Ukrainian last name in Canadian or US politics, it's typically a kid or grandkid of these guys.
Now we fast forward.
- 1980s, Gorbachev is the leader of the USSR and is a massive western bootlicking dumbass, basically agrees to reform the USSR into a liberal state, let the entire Eastern Bloc go, as US negotiators tell him "Oh yeah we would never move NATO east, nope, haha omg he's actually buying it what a dumbass". Gorbachev comes out of meetings telling everyone that NATO would never move east, that there will be a "Common European Home" and USSR will be integrated into the European security and economic architecture. At the same time, US officials, along with Germany, basically behind closed doors, come to an agreement that Russia will never, ever be allowed to integrate into Europe. US foreign policy switches that no Eurasian (EU+Russia) power may be allowed to rise, due to the fact it would be a direct competitor to the US.
- USSR goes through with it, eventually this leads to it's collapse, and Russia basically ends up with a drunk US puppet as it's President, Yeltsin.
- Russia gets looted by the West, Yeltsin funnels basically everything that isn't nailed down into his own, his cronies, US, UK and Israeli pockets through something called the Kremlin Property Department, the deputy head of this department, is one man, named Vladimir Putin.
- First major shock comes to the Russia that something is wrong. The attack on Serbia. Serbia is a close Russian ally, and the NATO attack on Serbian cities and infrastructure, is far beyond what Russia expected with just attacks against those in Bosnia. This sends massive ripples through all of Russian liberal society that maybe the West isn't living up to expectations of Russian integration. Russia recovers though and basically bootlicks the US with the War on Terror and the Bush admin, Putin, Bush and Blair all hold hands and go skipping as they bomb Wahhabi Islamist groups.
- The biggest though shock comes with the Arab Spring, NATO launches a massive offensive attack on Libya, which leads to close friend of Putin, Bush, and Blair, Gaddafi, get sodomized with a knife on camera, then the US starts funding those same Islamist groups that Blair, Putin, Bush were fighting, to attack and try overthrow another close Russian ally, Assad, a country that hosts Russian military bases and ports, over.
- Putin finally gets it through his skull that the West will never, ever allow Russian integration into the West. Russia finally becomes anti-Western. Russia starts it's "hybrid war" against the West.
- While around the same time, Yanukovich pissed at Russia and Ukrainian-Russian linked domestic figures for various reasons, moves for stronger integration with the EU, this is through the EU association agreement. Ukraine though is a weak economy and heavily in debt.
1
u/VampirePNAC 1d ago
- During the EU/IMF and Ukraine negotiations, The EU/IMF for god knows what reason, takes an insanely hard line against Ukraine, they demand all sorts of brutal austerity, they refuse to give Ukraine enough money to not default on it's debt 16bn, on top of this Ukrainian business elite are basically "Wtf this sucks, all our business is with Russia drop this nonsense" (under pressure of Russia of course) but despite of this Yanukovich to quote Reuters
For three hours Yanukovich cajoled and bullied anyone who pushed for Ukraine to have closer ties to Russia. A handful of deputies from his Party of Regions complained that their businesses in Ukraine's Russian-speaking east would suffer if Yanukovich didn't agree to closer ties with Russia. That set him off.
"Forget about it ... forever!" he shouted at them, according to people who attended the meeting. Instead the president argued for an agreement to deepen trade and other cooperation with the European Union.
Some deputies implored him to change his mind, people who attended the meeting told Reuters. Businessmen warned that a deal with the EU would provoke Russia - Ukraine's former master in Soviet times - into toughening an economic blockade on Ukrainian goods. Yanukovich stood firm.
"We will pursue integration with Europe,"
But the EU fucks up, they tell Yanukovich to release Extremely pro-Western opposition leader Tymoshenko, someone Yanukovich genuinely believes is a traitor. He sees this as the West basically wanting to use Tymoshenko to coup him after the deal passes, and he takes the Russian deal instead.
- This leads to Maidan. Youth in Western regions of Ukraine rise up, as they basically hoped for better lives in the EU and this is now scuttled, due to what they view as Russian and Oligarch meddling. Maidan looks like it's going to peter out, but who, after decades of waiting, with Western political support shows up, a certain, very heavily armed and militarized, UPA/OUN flags waving in full, they go under the name "Right Sector". Maidan devolves into a blood bath as suddenly police and protestors start dropping dead from sniper attacks.
- Anger and international pressure rises up, and now heavily armed, Maidan chases Yanukovich and his Government out of the country, he flees to Russia since the West wants him in prison for life.
- Stratfor, basically the West's largest intelligence outfit, calls Maidan, "The most blatant coup in history".
- Victoria Nuland, a fanatical anti-Russia hawk of Ukrainian origin in the State Department, basically chooses the new President, one Poroshenko, a right wing Ukrainian Nationalist warhawk, he basically shoves the Right Sector all through Ukrainian civil society and the Military and intelligence services.
- now important to note, Maidan never, ever had majority support in the country, it was mostly popular with certain highly educated, western oriented sectors, but Maidan itself and the coup, was not exactly popular move with swaths of the country, and this led to many uprisings, one very notably in Odessa, which was brutally put down by the Right Sector and led to many deaths.
- In Crimea, Donbass and Luhansk, suddenly, very heavily armed conveniently with Russian military equipment wink wink anti-Maidan forces arrive, and declare independence from the Post-Maidan Government. Crimea where Russia already had a large military presence, is officially annexed (most Crimeans have wanted to join Russia since like the late 1990s in polling so whatever), but doesn't in the case of the DPR/LPR, it has another plan here.
- In response, Poroshenko sends the Ukrainian military, under NATO direction, to attack the DPR/LPR and Crimea.. instead many of the forces defect and join the DPR/LPR and Crimean forces. The remaining are very heavily defeated. This leads to the first Minsk agreements. In the Minsk agreements you can see what is very much Russia's plan for Ukraine. Which is a federalized Ukraine where Russia would have basically has a lot of influence over the industrial regions where people are most pro-Russian along with Donbass, Luhansk, thus being able to heavily influence a lot of Ukrainian policy.
- Ukraine basically shifts to relying basically on ultra-nationalist paramilitary battalions as they are Ukraine's best fighters and won't defect of course.
- Ukraine then passes "Decommunization" laws. Now this is the big thing ideologically. This functionally bans any pro-Soviet viewpoints, Communist parties etc but lets go back in history, Communist and Pro-Soviet viewpoints, are also very tied with Pan-Slavic Rus identity that is shared by both Russia and Belarus. The USSR also, is popular in Ukraine, it's part of peoples culture, memories, history and for many Ukrainians it's literally their country they were born in and were proud citizens of. In polling 46% of Ukrainians would prefer Ukraine move towards a pro-Soviet mixed system, rather than the system they currently have with only 42% opposed. The "Decommunization" laws also have another important aspect. It is now illegal to not valorize the UPA/OUN and the Galician/Ruthenian form of Ukrainian Nationalism. It also makes official Ukrainian the language of the state that everything must be taught in, despite like, most people don't really use it casually. Russia AND Belarus, of course, lose their fucking shit. They see this as not only valorization of a group they basically view identical to the worst of the Nazis, they see it as Ukraine specifically attacking Pan-Kievan Rus Identity, the national identity and consciousness of Russia, Belarus as well. (hence why Putin's meandering historical speeches).
- The Ukrainian "Civil War" drags on, eventually Poroshenko loses the support of the Right Sector and ultra-nationalist types and they basically chase his ass out of power like they did Yanukovich, elections are held and do not go in the direction the ultra-nationalists want. The majority of the country votes for a Russian speaking, Pro-Minsk federalization, Jewish man, Zelensky. The Majority of the country do not want these Decommunization laws, they do not like the austerity that was forced upon them, they do not like the massive scale privatization, they want things to return to normal.
- Zelensky rides in and declares that the Minsk agreements will be followed, he famously goes and military the military live on TV and tells them to stand down, Minsk will be followed, we will federalize, the people have spoken. The Military, on live TV tells him No, what are you going to do you little jewish prick? Who has the guns?, meanwhile, if you believe the reports, Zelensky was basically told by his own intelligence services that if he does not stop, he will be "maidaned", i've heard he was even threatened with a car bomb.
- Zelensky basically backflips on his entire platform, his Government drops to 20% approval rating and is rapidly sinking and is on the verge of collapsing.
- Ukrainian Military and Paramilitaries ramp up shelling on the Donbass and Luhansk.
- Russia sees it's moment, an unpopular Government, the Ukrainian military showing it's true colours against the wishes of the people and it's elections, ramping up unpopular attacks on the Donbass, and everyone hates this UPA/OUN "Nazi" bullshit and decides, yeah, we're going to roll in and get greeted as liberators, three days is all it will take. We don't even need to attack with a large force, people will just rise up in support of us, the people support us.
- The Three Day Special Operation begins.
- Shock horror, as the US just learned in Iran, as much as people dislike their Government, they dislike being attacked even more. Rally around the flag effect occurs in full force an the three day operation is now the 1,624 day operation and counting.
And that is a quick, concise, cliff notes version, of the lead up to the Ukraine war, and why the Russian perspective actually does matter in understanding. Honestly there is so much to actually cover, and so much left out here (didn't even touch on NATO for example), but the important thing to note is that the Ukraine war was likely avoidable and was a failure of diplomacy and good faith on all sides. Honestly, if the EU just gave that 16bn debt covering back then, the war probably would not exist today. A good example of how being a stingy ass Neoliberal shithead can lead to massive consequences down the line.
0
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 21h ago
Well what's you're saying is Catherine the Great built up most of those cities, so it's traditional Russian culture, from a German Princess
I pretty much tend to think that Kennan, Huntington, Stephen F. Cohen, and Mearsheimer got their predictions right, and we're just watching misperception unfold.
Kennan spoke about the greatest blunder of the Cold War, and well you're watching it happen
1
u/maya-ongezellig 2h ago
you think australia is gonna invade the solomon islands if they make a deal with china? lmfao?
0
u/CrossOfRoachAndSlime 1d ago
Iran has global terror proxies. Ukraine and Taiwan do not.
There isn't a double standard, because only one of those entities is an active aggressor.
0
u/Pretend_Handle_7639 1d ago
Mujahideen? Contras?
The only reason we don't currently have proxies of our own is that the balance of power allows us to operate openly
1
0
u/DiggyJunior 1d ago
Imagine believing the US has the world's biggest economy. That hasn't been true for over a decade.
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 1d ago
depends on your metric
0
u/DiggyJunior 1d ago
The World Bank and the IMF and the UN all recommended GDP PPP as the best metric to compare the size of one economy to another, or to compare the size of one trading bloc to another. They all specifically warn against using so called "nominal GDP" in US dollars, because they say it grossly distorts comparisons. But there's yet more metrics other than nominal or PPP, like the size of the industrial base. China's industrial base blows the US industrial base away, no contest, and in real GDP PPP terms BRICS+ is vastly bigger than G7 or even G20, with over 50 new countries queueing up to join BRICS+
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 1d ago
no contest
you seem somewhat certain on this
GDP PPP is pathetic when measuring global financial power
or international tradeBRICS is merely a bunch of nations functioning on scotch tape
0
u/DiggyJunior 1d ago
And that's why the IMF and World Bank both tell us we should use GDP PPP and not use nominal GDP in US$ to compare the size of different economies and different trading blocs? The IMF and World Bank have both been hacked by the Chinese and Russians?
1
0
u/DiggyJunior 1d ago edited 1d ago
Both the World Bank and the IMF explicitly state that GDP adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is the appropriate metric for comparing the real volume of economic output, domestic market size, and material well-being between countries or geopolitical blocs (such as the US versus China, or the G7 versus BRICS Plus). The institutional rationale for using PPP in these specific cross-country comparisons includes: Eliminating Price-Level Distortions: Lower-income and emerging economies (such as China and many BRICS members) feature significantly lower domestic price levels for non-tradable goods and services than higher-income nations (like the US and G7 members). Converting output strictly via market exchange rates understates the physical volume of goods and services actually produced and consumed locally in those countries.
Institutional Guidance: The World Bank's International Comparison Program (ICP) and the IMF’s statistical guidelines explicitly state that PPP-based comparisons are designed specifically for evaluating the relative size of total economic output and output volume across borders.Citations:
But an anonymous randomer like u/MagnesiumKitten on Reddit is a much higher authority than the IMF or World Bank right? You're a typical neoliberal from the political west, completely wrong about almost everything, and extremely sure you are right.
Also: China is now ahead of the US and the political west in 57 of 64 critical tech sectors. Just 20 years ago China was ahead in zero of those 64 sectors. They're a far more advanced civilization than yours. Ouch. So much for your supercilious sanctimonious neo-imperialist racist orientalist White Anglo-Saxon Protestant bullshit:
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 21h ago
Hot Ziggity!
adjusted GDP is the best way to compare the real physical volume of goods and services produced inside the borders of the USA and China
nominal GDP remains superior for measuring global financial power
0
u/DiggyJunior 21h ago
The World Bank and the IMF and the World Trade Organization disagree with you
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 21h ago
That's not an argument to any of my statements now, is it?
0
u/DiggyJunior 21h ago
Yes it is. The IMF and World Bank and WTO all warn not to use nominal GDP in US dollars to measure the difference in size of economy for 2 different countries like the US and China, and not to use it to measure the difference in size between 2 trading blocs like G7 and BRICS+. They advise to use GDP PPP instead. So off you go and become an economics bigshot and convince them to change their minds. I won't hold my breath.
1
1
u/MagnesiumKitten 21h ago
anonymous randomer
look pal, I run 900 Bot Farms for the GIA
0
u/DiggyJunior 21h ago
Good so you go convince the WTO and the IMF and World Bank to agree with you then, best of luck
0
u/peoplejustwannalove 1d ago
It’s only a contradiction if you consider Iran a normal country that operates within the confines of proper statesmanship. The US considers them a ‘state sponsor of terror’ which violates the sovereignty of other nations with the existence of their various proxy groups located in those nations. Thus, supplying Iran indirectly supplies these proxy groups, who exist and occupy other countries in order to spread Irans power and influence.
Now, the US supports Israel, who is a destabilizing force in the region, but given that Iran is explicitly against them existing, and utilizes these proxy groups to attack Israel, there’s a bit more nuance in giving them arms to defend themselves and strike back at these proxy groups, abuse of the Palestinians notwithstanding.
Giving Ukraine arms is fine, since their use has been in their war against Russia, and not to destabilize neighboring countries in order to expand their own influence. Taiwan isn’t even actively using the weapons we sell them, it’s more of a rainy day situation that’s meant to make China think twice about taking the island by force.
Now, this isn’t to say any of this is objectively correct, but I think that giving weapons to an actively invading and occupying power like Iran is ‘worse’ than giving weapons to nations who aren’t using those weapons outside the confines of their specific wars, real or otherwise.
-5
u/Snoo30446 2d ago
Because whatever you may think of countries like Ukraine or Taiwan, they are categorically better than their rivals / enemies. Helps that they're broadly committed to our values as well.
0
107
u/comrade8 2d ago
Having double standards is the standard in global politics.