TheBeege

Not gonna convince you, but in case others read...

• Ukraine is a sovereign nation
• Ukraine holds elections
• Ukraine is known for corruption but had been improving
• Ukraine has ethnic Russians in the Eastern areas of the country, but more Russians were sent into the region as agitators before the annexation of Crimea
• Russia believes Ukraine as both a country and culture should not exist, according to their strategy published in Foundations of Geopolitics, which they have clearly been following the past few decades
• Ukraine is a major grain producer for Russia and Europe, so the region is highly valuable
• Ukraine had been discussing NATO membership before the war
• NATO was created explicitly in response to fears of invasion of European nations by the Soviet Union, and the Russian Federation is seen as the inheritor of the Soviet Union
• Russia considers NATO a nearly existential threat and has historically exerted political pressure over neighboring states to prevent them from joining NATO
• In text, NATO acts as a mutual defense pact, among other provisions around economic and political cooperation
• In practice, NATO has only been invoked in the Iraq War, attacks against Turkey from Syria and terrorist forces, and Russian incursions into Ukraine. Note that since Ukraine is not a member, NATO has not responded with the full provisions demanded in the text. It had been invoked by neighboring and nearby nations.
• At the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine signed a treaty with Russia to hand over their nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees of sovereignty and peace
• During the war, Russia has targeted and destroyed both civilian and military assets and individuals in Ukraine
• During the war, Ukraine has made drone strikes against military targets in Russia proper, including Moscow

Puppet government is a stretch and depends on your definition. Considering that Ukraine is not a member of NATO despite several economic ties with the US, I don't think it's much of a puppet state, if at all. (Edit: I say this not to suggest that NATO is subject to the US, but it would be highly beneficial to the US if Ukraine had become a member long, long ago.) The Ukrainian government being full of Nazis is generally considered fake news, but I haven't seen evidence one way or the other.

NATO is not imperialist, as it does not establish hierarchical relationships. It is quite egalitarian. If anything, it encourages Europe to be more self sufficient, as the US wanted to minimize commitment to joining a European war. It is also meant to discourage and if possible prevent conflict among members. You could argue post-colonial economic dependence on the US, but... what countries don't have that?

Also, to break the logic in the commenter's argument... if a nation exhibiting Nazi behavior - that is, genocide or subjugation/mistreatment of a demographic under the government's rule - then we should invade the following countries for the mentioned populations:

• China for Uyghurs and arguably Mongolians
• India for Muslims
• US for immigrants
• Several African nations
• Myanmar for several ethnic groups
• Israel for Palestinians/Arabs
• Some middle eastern nations for denominations of Islam
• Russia for homosexual people

While I'm a fan of... you know, not abusing populations, I'm also not a fan of invading sovereign nations. So Russia's justification for invasion is a pretense and has a huge amount of historical context around it. OP's argument is highly flawed.

I'll only respond to items with cited evidence. Cited evidence should not include state-backed media or unreputable sources like some clearly extremist "news" site or individual blog.

If you'd like my citations, lemme know. Typed this up on mobile, so a bit of a pain. Corrections always welcome with proper evidence. Being corrected is good learning :)

Uhh... the USSR occupied the North until Kim Il-Sung took control. Just like the US with the South.

The (current) relationships between the North and China and between the South and the US are very similar, except the US has military bases in the South. But the US does that with all its allies.

As for the ROK military being directly subservient... I'm not as knowledgeable about this, but I think that's only half true. The Korean military largely focuses on logistics and raw manpower, plus their special forces. (Holy shit, Korean special forces are fucking terrifying.) It's largely understood that the US would lead operations, given that the US has more veterans, mass, and better-tested doctrine. However, as I understand, legally, Korea still controls its own military. KOTRA is one exception, but that's a small subset of Korea's military. But to be clear, this is my understanding from passive learning. I could be wrong about things and don't have the time to read up right this moment. I'd appreciate corrections with sources.

No idea what the previous comments were, but definitely want to comment on some things here.

Most younger Koreans don't see the peninsula as one nation. They feel that the North and South have diverged enough that they should just make peace and do their own things. The "mutual desire for unification" is not ubiquitous, and "unification" is better described as "conquest."

And acknowledging the current state doesn't invalidate history. We can acknowledge that the present is different from the past. We can acknowledge that there is a shared history and various collective struggles but that different people decided to go different ways.

Yeah, I realized that when I saw that news later. Not sure about the DPRK explicitly sending out propaganda, but it makes sense the it would get pro-DPRK folks active

Slow down, my dude. I said I live in Korea. I'm not a citizen.

There are many laws about what people can and can't say in Korea, but in practice, they only apply to what you can say broadly in media. The defamation laws here are also very severe, but there's always banners around Gangnam Station calling the CEO of Samsung a pedophile. So take that with a grain of salt. The intent is to prevent defectors from spreading Northern propaganda. There are plenty of documentaries about things defectors found nice in the North and have struggle adapting to in the South.

I'm realizing I wasn't clear at all. The "tricks" I was referring to were thinking that communism leads to a healthy, vibrant society. No, modern China and Vietnam are not truly communist. The USSR was communist, and that was all sorts of no bueno. Pure communism doesn't lead to good outcomes. The DPRK is trash. China went pretty capitalist. The USSR collapsed. If China loosened up on the one-party and media control bits or if Europe didn't start swinging right again, I think those might be pretty cool.

Not sure how much you still want to hear my opinion knowing I'm not a citizen, but why not. Yeah, the military dictatorships during the early ROK's history were fucked. Yes, US intervention was fucked. No, the US doesn't occupy South Korea. Koreans have their own elections. Koreans decide their own laws. US soldiers aren't patrolling the streets. The US controlling the schools and universities. Shit, I watched Park and Yoon get impeached. The US government probably loved those idiots.

As for the drills... yeah? And the US and other countries run joint military exercises together, too. That's what allies do...? For sanctions, also yeah? The South is at war with the North, and the US doesn't like the North. Why wouldn't there be sanctions...? I don't think it's necessarily the best strategy, but it's not unexpected.

Okay, your second paragraph confuses the hell out of me. It sounds like you're arguing against yourself. Can you rephrase it for me? I want to understand what you're saying.

Also, the US doesn't have an emperor. It may be imperialistic, but it's not an empire. But reading that makes me imagine it as an actual empire, which is fucking terrifying. Please don't? At least for me? That makes me wildly uncomfortable.

So... The US occupied the South until the ROK was established. This was kind of like Germany but for a much shorter time. When the North invaded the South, UN forces came to help. Yes, there was a direct line from Japanese occupation to US occupation, but US occupation ended very shortly afterwards. Say what you will about influence, but influence and occupation are very distinct. And yes, the US fucking with the PRK was terrible. I'm with you on that. But we're talking about South Korea today.

But going back to the original point, if the societal pressure results from the US, then why don't we see such pressure in the US itself? Your historical argument for this doesn't stand.

A simpler explanation is the rise of Neo-Confucianism during the Joseon dynasty. It was patriarchal, focused on hierarchical structures, and expected testing for advancement. This clearly leads to competitive behaviors. While you could argue the US has similar things, Neo-Confucianism cranked that up to 11. The Joseon dynasty after Sejong was pretty shit. Korea was like this before the US showed up, even before the Japanese showed up (the last time. They tried so many times before that).

What's with all the Korea shit recently?

I live in South Korea. It's convenient, safe, and modern. I might be biased because I live in Gangnam, but I feel like people here have more spending power on average than people in the US.

The societal pressure is a fucking nightmare, but that's a uniquely Korean thing. Nothing to do with the US.

Calling the South under foreign occupation is utter nonsense. Obviously, it's hyperbole and propagandist, but it also acts like Korea doesn't have its own culture or resist American influence. Quit trying to be edgy and use your brain.

If you want to talk about occupation, read up on the Japanese occupation of Korea. That was foreign occupation.