Should we still be backing Ukraine?

[Hatfort]

@zazen

Thank you! Conflicts in the world are complicated and each side will always hold their justifications for their aims. I think conflicts have to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, you can't translate what's happening in one place to understand another, that will always fail.

About Russia, Leo says Putin will take as much as he can, which may be true to some extent. I say some extent because I think Ukraine can still hold the territories that hasn't lost by now if they get that Russia won't accept more NATO expansion on their border. Then again, Russia put thousands of Russian men's lives on the table, so what they have conquered by now, they won't withdraw. Now it's easy to say, but Putin took a big gamble at the time, he could have lost the war or gotten all Russians against him for this. I don't think NATO or Zelensky thought he would take this step, so they were enforcing their military intentions, not officially as NATO, but it was happening in practice. Not to speak about the war and oppression that Russian sentiment people in the Donbas were suffering mostly since 2014, obviously, that wasn't liked in Moscow. You know, if they were Moldovan sentiment people, they would be screwed, I know how the world works, but their big brother was Russia, a really big one.

About geopolitics, I believe diplomacy is helpful, I prefer Trump sending love letters, and Putin driving with karaoke with Kim Jong Un, than saying North Korea will become a fire Hell, Trump's words at the beginning of his term. Even if Kim Jong Un is a dictator, that's bad enough for North Koreans, I don't want them to be nuked on top of that. Not to mention that they would respond equally, bye South Korea, Japan, and whatever they could reach. The nuclear war is possible, I hate to even say it. I think NATO is the one being most irresponsible right now, because they are escalating as much as they can against Russia through Ukraine proxy. They can't accept Russia is winning in conventional warfare terms.

We are a singular species with many different nations and cultures in one world, that's what has to be accepted. I don't say it from a naive standpoint, but a realistic one. That's how it really is.

[zazen]

On 6/21/2024 at 9:29 AM, zazen said:

@Hatfort You always provide a good synopsis of the situation even on the Gaza side.

Every time Putin extends an olive branch, our benevolent leaders are quick to torch it. Doing this during a peace summit in Switzerland just exposes the hypocrisy - maybe Putin timed this purposely to create the contrast. Or maybe he just thought their in the mood for peace as their literally doing a summit on it dedicated to Ukraine.

They’re rejecting peace to feed the beast of power and profits. The very same talking heads who lecture us about freedom and democracy are suddenly mute when it comes to Ukraine literally dragging its citizens kicking and screaming to the front lines. The con in con-scription is you die for a script written by those who don’t. “Bodily autonomy" flies out the window when there's a war to be fought.

The audacity of war cheerleaders debating whether we should support this madness. Just sacrificing Ukrainian lives on the altar of geopolitical power games and democracy is a moral catastrophe dressed up in yellow and blue. As a talking head in the West said on live TV - the Ukrainian war is a cheap way to weaken Russia with Ukrainian lives in the meat grinder instead of their own citizens from Britain, France, Germany or the US.

https://x.com/KimDotcom/status/1804265849647436070

https://x.com/ArthurM40330824/status/1804407156407423199

In addition to above and in light of the recent beach attack in Sevastapool killing + terrorist attack claimed by ISIS in Dagestan targeting Churches (odd how ISIS in 8 months of Israel / Gaza haven't scratched a olive tree in Israel yet always seem to attack the enemies of the West)

By Alon Mirzahi:

Something has to also be said about American strategic stupidity, escalating at the same time in Ukraine and the ME. Here's just one aspect of it: Russia has a meaningful presence very close to Lebanon. It has very deep ties to Iran. By hurting Russia at home (maybe you've seen the Ukrainian-American attack on beachgoers in Crimea that took place a few hours ago: Putin and Lavrov are pointing fingers at the US directly), the Americans are pushing the Russians to want to retaliate, or take revenge. This is basic stuff.

Now, think whatever you want about Russia and the Ukraine war, Russia has tremendous military capabilities, on par, and in some areas (like hypersonic missiles) even ahead of the US. As the US is rushing to protect and assist Israel's war on Lebanon, why expose American troops to Russian capabilities by escalating in Ukraine? A slight uptick in the help Russia provides Hezbollah and Iran, or Syrian Islamic resistance forces, could mean the lives of many, many Israelis and Americans.

Hezbollah may have some super-advanced missiles, why push Russia to give them another 100? And we saw a bit of the intelligence Hezbollah has on Israel, can you imagine what Russia has, and can provide? The Americans must know that in Lebanon and potentially Syria, Russians have the perfect playfield to exact revenge on American forces who are shedding their blood in Ukraine. So why be so callous and dumb about it? In normal and sane times, the US would come to certain understandings with Russia before it allowed any escalation in the ME. But now it lets Israel start another war after it's already fatigued from one, in an atmosphere of open war against Russia, and when Russian forces have been deeply established in the region and have close relationships with Iran and its proxies.

You thought I was kidding when I talked about an American aircraft carrier sinking. Believe me, if Russia wants a carrier to sink (directly or by proxy), it will sink. Look what the Houthis have done with 3rd rate missiles. I simply cannot understand the American callousness and strategic stupidity. Western elites are playing with their militaries as if it's all a monopoly game, one in which they are very unsophisticated players lacking all foresight and finesse. It is so obvious they are walking into a huge trap with absofuckinglutely nothing to gain, and no plan.''

Edited June 24 by zazen

[Hatfort]

18 minutes ago, zazen said:

https://x.com/KimDotcom/status/1804265849647436070

https://x.com/ArthurM40330824/status/1804407156407423199

In addition to above and in light of the recent beach attack in Sevastapool killing + terrorist attack claimed by ISIS in Dagestan targeting Churches (odd how ISIS in 8 months of Israel / Gaza haven't scratched a olive tree in Israel yet always seem to attack the enemies of the West)

By Alon Mirzahi:

Something has to also be said about American strategic stupidity, escalating at the same time in Ukraine and the ME. Here's just one aspect of it: Russia has a meaningful presence very close to Lebanon. It has very deep ties to Iran. By hurting Russia at home (maybe you've seen the Ukrainian-American attack on beachgoers in Crimea that took place a few hours ago: Putin and Lavrov are pointing fingers at the US directly), the Americans are pushing the Russians to want to retaliate, or take revenge. This is basic stuff.

Now, think whatever you want about Russia and the Ukraine war, Russia has tremendous military capabilities, on par, and in some areas (like hypersonic missiles) even ahead of the US. As the US is rushing to protect and assist Israel's war on Lebanon, why expose American troops to Russian capabilities by escalating in Ukraine? A slight uptick in the help Russia provides Hezbollah and Iran, or Syrian Islamic resistance forces, could mean the lives of many, many Israelis and Americans.

Hezbollah may have some super-advanced missiles, why push Russia to give them another 100? And we saw a bit of the intelligence Hezbollah has on Israel, can you imagine what Russia has, and can provide? The Americans must know that in Lebanon and potentially Syria, Russians have the perfect playfield to exact revenge on American forces who are shedding their blood in Ukraine. So why be so callous and dumb about it? In normal and sane times, the US would come to certain understandings with Russia before it allowed any escalation in the ME. But now it lets Israel start another war after it's already fatigued from one, in an atmosphere of open war against Russia, and when Russian forces have been deeply established in the region and have close relationships with Iran and its proxies.

You thought I was kidding when I talked about an American aircraft carrier sinking. Believe me, if Russia wants a carrier to sink (directly or by proxy), it will sink. Look what the Houthis have done with 3rd rate missiles. I simply cannot understand the American callousness and strategic stupidity. Western elites are playing with their militaries as if it's all a monopoly game, one in which they are very unsophisticated players lacking all foresight and finesse. It is so obvious they are walking into a huge trap with absofuckinglutely nothing to gain, and no plan.''

Ukraine is out of soldiers, those poor guys without any training have no chance of surviving in the front. I see the evidence that they are practically kidnapping men in the streets or tricking them, because they see beyond propaganda that Russia is winning. They don't want to die, but if they speak up against Zelensky, they'd be in big trouble too, not to say dead. The West is playing with their lives when there are diplomatic routes they could and would have taken if it was men from their own countries dying.

Apparently, ISIS is now very interested in attacking Russia. They claimed the terrorist attack that killed more than 100 civilians in Moscow. Could the CIA be messing? I don't discard it at all. At minute one of the attack the USA was saying it wasn't Ukraine, that it was ISIS. How did they know anything that fast? The terrorists were caught escaping towards the border of Ukraine, according to Russia. We can't say things for certain from our seats, but Russia's number one enemies are Ukraine and NATO countries right now.

The war against Ukraine hasn't decimated Russia's military capabilities like many predicted it would when it started. Now it's better than ever, like taking an old rusty car, after lubricating and replacing some pieces here and there, you put it to run some miles, and there you go. Their military industry is functioning again, they have thousands of officials and soldiers with real combat experience, more war vehicles like tanks and the capabilities to fix them when damaged, international military commerce relations, etc... NATO really messed up with this, one of the brilliant minds behind was the recently fired Victoria Nuland. Ukraine was gonna be first, then Georgia, and Taiwan was on the list, they want to mess with China too. China won't allow them to do anything either, but at all.

With BRICS Russia and China have developed a good relationship, that's the worst that could have happened to the USA its European stupid puppets. France is barking like an annoying chihuahua because they are some of the most awful excolonizers of Africa, and Russia and China are helping some of these countries to cut ties with them and the USA. Then there is the Middle East, Biden's words, if we had not an Israel in there, we would have to invent it. Israel's existence and presence in that region respond to the way the USA sees the world as something they have to control, police, and dominate. Instead, Russia and China are developing a respectful relationship with Iran, and they hate that too. Lebanon hasn't been asleep the last twenty years and their military force is very considerable now. I don't know what Netanyahu is thinking, but those are not cornered like Hamas, if they fight them, IDF soldiers will die by thousands, and I don't think they are willing. The IDF men and women are trained to torment unarmed civilians and fire buildings from the sky, but they will shit in their pants against something big like Hezbollah. The north of Israel has already evacuated its civilians, which is a huge problem. The cherry on top is Yemen, they are firing all carrier ships that stop in Israel, which costs them billions, and the USA hasn't been able to do shit about that, because if they get close, they get fire too. Will they go to war against Yemen? What's new about that? That's been happening for years through Saudi Arabia.

[BlueOak]

On 21/06/2024 at 9:29 AM, zazen said:

@Hatfort You always provide a good synopsis of the situation even on the Gaza side.

Every time Putin extends an olive branch, our benevolent leaders are quick to torch it. Doing this during a peace summit in Switzerland just exposes the hypocrisy - maybe Putin timed this purposely to create the contrast. Or maybe he just thought their in the mood for peace as their literally doing a summit on it dedicated to Ukraine.
 

Dictating that you will give up nothing before the negotiations begin is not an olive branch; it's dictating terms. The west did exactly the same by saying negotiations can begin when you leave the territories you occupy. BOTH SIDES need to come together. Your bias is extreme here.

So if the dialogue will do nothing, the battlefield is going to decide the war, not hopes, dreams, or one side's terms. 
 

On 24/06/2024 at 5:41 PM, zazen said:

https://x.com/KimDotcom/status/1804265849647436070

https://x.com/ArthurM40330824/status/1804407156407423199

In addition to above and in light of the recent beach attack in Sevastapool killing

I've heard reports it was Russian air defense fragments, but at the least, it was Russia that shot it down over a warzone. That is a fact. This is a war though this happens daily.

People should get out of the land they've illegally occupied in a warzone, as Ukrainians have been forced to do. That should be step number one for the civilian population. Going for a holiday there on a beach with active military targets seems incredibly stupid. I also find it incredible that for two years, Russia has fired missiles into civilian targets, yet one beach gets all the headlines. The Russians are great at propaganda; we have to give them that.

The ports in Crimea have to be eliminated to stop them from firing on civilian targets in Ukraine, and they are Ukrainian ports to target.
 

On 24/06/2024 at 6:48 PM, Hatfort said:

its European stupid puppets. France is barking like an annoying chihuahua

Frankly, I am not sure how the moderators let you get away with saying this. If I said the same i'd expect my post to be locked or blocked. This is a European war, fought in Europe against European powers. America is backing its allies.
 

On 24/06/2024 at 6:48 PM, Hatfort said:

Ukraine is out of soldiers,

Russian propaganda. As they are still recruiting them now. Russia has said this for 2 years, and it's never been true, only on their state TV fantasy land.
 

On 24/06/2024 at 6:48 PM, Hatfort said:

 

The war against Ukraine hasn't decimated Russia's military capabilities like many predicted it would when it started. Now it's better than ever, like taking an old rusty car, after lubricating and replacing some pieces here and there, you put it to run some miles, and there you go. Their military industry is functioning again, they have thousands of officials and soldiers with real combat experience, more war vehicles like tanks and the capabilities to fix them when damaged, international military commerce relations, etc...

They are using WW2 arms and ammunition, some older than that. They use human wave tactics; their experienced office core died at the start of the war, and their naval assets and airforce are being depleted faster than ever. Russia has lost about 60% of its soviet stockpiles.

This is part of why the West is happy to continue. Because Russia keeps wasting its stockpiles. When they are gone, so is its ability to project power conventionally, it removes a massive threat to Europe. America and Europe are not doing this out of the goodness of their heart, while Russia keeps doing what they want, running themselves into the ground they'll continue. When it looks like a stalemate, they'll probably stop.

[BlueOak]

As always, the pro-Russian side makes this all about America because to consider Ukraine or even Europe would be to consider the full reality of the conflict.

It also brings us a step closer to a peace deal, as all the relevant parties would be considered. But instead, they make the demonized 'other,' the Americans, their only focus, so they miss most of the factors involved and broaden a conflict. At the same time, they don't want American influence in their region; they want a smaller conflict. This contradiction works against them (and world peace).

I have repeatedly demonstrated that the American population is 30% or so pro-Russian while showing that Eastern Europe is the most pro-Ukrainian region. Still, it becomes so convenient to ignore this fact because then we'd get closer to an uncomfortable truth:

For Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and America. Everyone I've just mentioned would lose something by acknowledging it.

• Russia would be forced to acknowledge their campaign of fear, war, and territorial ambitions, causing these reactions in the East of Europe and causing what they don't want: people to move away from them and closer to NATO. They would be forced to realise they have actual responsibility for their own actions.
   
• America would be forced to admit that half of their country is becoming isolationist and a threat to their overseas empire, which is only increased by the railroading over these concerns. They may even be forced to reflect that a safer world isn't one in which you have 5,000 military bases, one can hope, and thus bring other countries in as more equal partners with direct military capability of their own.
   
• Europe would be forced to acknowledge its role in allowing Russia to become so dominant militarily compared to them and its role in funding this more fully. Decades of overreliance on America for their own security. To be fair, we've done some of that and made some adjustments, but it's not serious military spending in the UK, for example, or a complete break with Russian energy yet in central Europe (Germany needs to get over its nuclear power fears)
   
• Ukraine would be forced to admit that the support for them will only last while Russia makes this out to be a larger war. If Russia kept insisting on the complete opposite, that this was a local dispute, it would have gone more in that direction. Now that they are pulling in North Korean troops for example, it makes it even more international. *Obviously it was in the interests of the defenders to broaden the war, as they were the smaller side, now the power balance has shifted, Russia is forced to go to other countries for materials and manpower.

Edited June 27 by BlueOak

[Hatfort]

47 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Dictating that you will give up nothing before the negotiations begin is not an olive branch; it's dictating terms. The west did exactly the same by saying negotiations can begin when you leave the territories you occupy. BOTH SIDES need to come together. Your bias is extreme here.

So if the dialogue will do nothing, the battlefield is going to decide the war, not hopes, dreams, or one side's terms. 

If you are winning on the battlefield, that is what you are giving up, gaining more land. But it's not out of the cost of human lives and big wars are always risky, so it would be very satisfying for Putin and Russia the terms he put on the table, even if they have the advantage. The NATO and Zelensky side don't want it, they still have to admit they have lost, and that they won't regain the lost territories by force, or by dialogue. But they should come to terms with the fact that Russia can gain even more, that's why they should sit down, apart from stopping the slaughter on both sides, but mostly on theirs, as it's understandable. Ukrainian common citizens don't want to fight, because they know their fate if they do, death. They send them into the first front which is a meat grinder and the Zelensky loyal Azov battalions wait on a second front and kill them if they retreat. Russians on the other hand, not only outnumber them, but they are willing to fight. They receive good training before going and good benefits.

NATO countries are using the gray areas of sending long-range weapons, instructors, and things like that as much as they can. I don't think they'll send troops, because Russia will attack anyone who does that directly. USA, which moves the strings in NATO, will abandon any member who makes such a stupid decision on his own because they don't want to get involved directly in a full war against Russia. Maybe they even understand the high risks of that on a global scale. So let's say Poland decides to send troops without the permission of the USA, which they won't give, then they are fucked, Russia will attack them directly, and NATO won't do shit, even if they are NATO members.

You've eaten a lot of propaganda. I remember the first few days of the war with YouTube videos with titles like Why Russia has already lost. They've aged like milk in summer, I wonder if they're still up there. They probably disappeared as all these social media accounts with the Ukranian colors in their nicknames did. The videos stated how weak and bad the Russian military force was, predicted a total economic collapse, and that the Russian citizens would personally put Putin down of power. They were wrong in everything, they were just winning the propaganda war, and thought that was enough, but the battlefield is what matters most in times of war, and after three years, Russia is consistently winning on that front, the one that matters.

The advance is slow, Ukraine can still defend itself, but the erosion will affect them more and more. No Western weapon will fix that. Russia has good equipment and won't get out of it. You are wrong on that, they are not using 80-year-old equipment as you say, that's ridiculous. Maybe some yes, who knows, if they still work, whatever. But what they didn't have ready in 2022, they have developed it by now or bought it to their numerous allies, and they are not out of money. I'm telling you, pure propaganda, the specialty of the West, which is nice in times of peace, but in real war you need real results.

[Hatfort]

Here a good analysis of the early times of the war, but more importantly, of the 2014 and subsequent years.

 

[BlueOak]

@Hatfort

Russia were gaining small amounts of territory at great cost on the battlefield because Ukraine didn't have much ammunition. They were outshelling Ukraine to 10 to 1. That is not the case anymore, and Ukraine is no longer out of ammo as Putin's Allies in America were beaten back. Ukraine is not hamstrung (as much) about where it can target Russian supply lines or troops. For most of this war, Russia has been able to pick and choose where it fights with safer supply lines; this is not so much the case now. Although Ukraine still has certain restrictions, there are not as many.

The west collectively is pushing for a stalemate; it has been for a long time. To make an uncertain conflict certain. It gets nothing out of letting Russia dictate terms—nothing at all because that makes the entire West look weak and like an authoritarian power can do whatever it wants, threaten or invade wherever it wants, and they have to bow to it. If Russia was smart, it would think about what it could offer. Ukraine gets nothing if Russia takes its territory with no concessions, so there is no peace. Eastern Europe's concerns are not addressed in this either because a large chunk of a neighbor will have been given up, and it'll be the 9th Russian war pushing into former USSR territories.

The only possible way this could be sold as even a minor victory for the West is when the Russian economy collapses, which it is slightly doing. Still, BRICS have extended this so much now by the need to be or at least appear a rival to NATO, that this hasn't happened significantly.

There is no incentive at all for peace. I cannot communicate this to people who want this multipolar world. They have to see it play out I guess. There is only incentive for war. Suffering, you might say, but there is suffering either way and a lot of hate for Russia (and the other way to NATO)  if you rely on emotion to be the resolving force of anything. 

The other problem you have Hatfort is you are completely sold on Russia propaganda about their capabilities and their intent to stop after this. So you overestimate their position and then wonder why people are not acknowledging it or fear their continuance. I'm not immune to this effect myself, but I tend to just watch what happens, the outcome. I saw Russia kicked out of the country unprepared in four different areas; then I saw a failed Ukraine counterattack because the West waited too long to supply it and Russia defended well. Now all I see is a lot of Russian casualties and some Ukrainian losses, but with very minor shifts on the front line, even when Ukraine was undersupplied. When Ukraine is properly supplied, Russia has just been kicked out of the Kharkiv region again.

I daily see large hits on the Russian economy through regular refineries going up to drone hits, Russian oil shortages, and Putin needing to ask outside countries for aid. I saw Putin threaten Eastern Europe and the UK enough (almost daily if you watch their state TV), and BRICS embarrass France in Africa so that these countries pushed to send more aid to Ukraine, including troops, but the French settled on instructors. Now I see North Korea sending combat troops there and threatening the South after Russia gives them and Belarus Nukes. 

So the West can send anything. It should lock down the skies or secure the northern border. Despite Russian propaganda, there have not been combat troops in Ukraine from the West, Russia was never fighting 'the west', no matter how much it wanted to sell that reality to the world. Now you might see western troops there in a limited capacity.

It might not need to be Troops, but we can send almost anything now.

Edited June 27 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

58 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

Here a good analysis of the early times of the war, but more importantly, of the 2014 and subsequent years.

 

Ukraine offered neutrality to Russia, it was rejected by Russia:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-offers-neutrality-exchange-nato-style-security-guarantees-russia-talks-2022-03-29/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/ukraines-zelensky-to-offer-neutrality-declaration-to-russia-for-peace-without-delay

The opening part of the interview is almost entirely false.

It still paints America as the one driving this, which is also a lie. This is best demonstrated by aid being withheld for a long period, by a large part of American pro-Russian Trump supporters and an even larger part of America wanting peace. So that is also a lie, and I am only 4 minutes in. It's the UK, Poland, the Baltics, Finland, and now France, to a lesser extent, pushing for the strongest responses because Russia keeps threatening them the most. Russia is no threat to the US anymore conventionally, it's too weak; they live in a fantasy where they are a superpower. China is the superpower in BRICS.

Then he takes the Russian talking point of it as a civil war, Russia armed, gave manpower to, and funded the militias, and when the coup happened, it used them to attack, creating a war within Ukraine. Stating that Russia just happened to come along to help is a completely Russian position. I have talked about that before: it is not a neutral position; it is not a Ukrainian position or an Eastern European position; it is a Russian talking point that all world powers like to frame their wars as 'the liberators' or the people 'helping'. It's always BS, no war is moral, or better than the others.

Maybe more democratic countries should start destabilizing countries again, or is that bad when others not aligned with Russia or BRICS do it? Isn't that the point of BRICS to stop people from doing that? No, it's not; it's to frame it so that when BRICS does it, it's okay; it's fighting the evil Americans. Despite the fact that it's in Europe, and much of America either has forgotten about it, doesn't care, or supports Russia and/or peace.

'Native Russian speakers' Yes, because the entire area was run by the Soviet Union, and that was its language. There was no problem between languages; he was listing Russian talking points. The Russian language was still spoken, and there was no ill will between the East and West of Ukraine from what I've been told. I only have secondhand people telling me that.

Then I stopped at the Nazi's lies. The Azov battalion was a few hundred strong and integrated into the regular armed forces of Ukraine before the war started. Russia has far more far-right extremists in it than Ukraine because 1) This war is about restoring nationalism or Russian Imperialism. 2) Putin uses them to stay in power. 3) The leader of the Azov stepped down to run in the election; he got 2-3% of the vote combined with the other far-right parties. 4) Russia exports this far-right extremism around the globe.

Russia has sent us into a war. This creates far-right extremists. What was 16% in Germany in the recent elections? Its trying to push migrants into Europe to keep fueling tensions.

I could go on analysing the lies past the 5-minute mark, but there is no attempt at all for a balanced point of view or a meeting in the middle, just one side bare-faced lying. Maybe it gets better, but I doubt it.

Edited June 27 by BlueOak

[zazen]

On 27/06/2024 at 8:51 AM, BlueOak said:

As always, the pro-Russian side makes this all about America because to consider Ukraine or even Europe would be to consider the full reality of the conflict.

 

It’s not necessarily pro-Russian to view a chain of cause and effect and how provocative the West has been. Nigel Farage and Trump are now even using the forbidden P word and the narrative is shifting - as always much too later after the fact once countless lives are lost. And both have been labeled Putin lovers now or pro-Russian.

America has a huge sway on Europe and meddles in its politics. They are the main foundation holding the security architecture of Europe together via NATO.  In 2023, the U.S. accounted for about 68% of total NATO defense spending, amounting to approximately $860 billion. This figure is more than ten times the defense spending of the second-highest contributor, Germany. So of course we have to include them in discussion.

But if we want to look at Europe then let’s take a look at what was behind Nord stream, who gains from that? Why hasn’t Sweden released its findings due to the “sensitive nature of the findings”. Why did Boris Johnson who’s a lapdog of the US possibly sabotage early peace talks when he met Zelensky? Who does it circle back to, who gains. US provided 5% of Europes Gas before the war which has now jumped to 20%. 

The Western narrative is that this is about re-establishing Russian nationalism and imperialism. Why would Russia who is already the largest country in the world with some of the richest resources and a very long border it has to protect with an ever shrinking number of men needed to protect it - wish to destabilise themselves further with a war creating a sink hole for their already declining demographics and expanding their borders even more which need even more men to protect it.

Russia, just due to its demographics would have faded in its power anyway, this disruption, provocation and entanglement only hastens their decline. Which is what the West want, to disrupt Russia and China. The difference between them and the West in terms of war is that the West goes into war whilst looking for the next one - they go to war out of necessity. 

Don't mind the silly title of the video, the full Piers Morgan / Jeffrey Sachs interview was insightful but heres a shorter version:

You say BRICS topple governments and invades countries but beside Russia invading Ukraine, who have they toppled or invaded? Let’s not get started on the long line of colour revolutions, coups and invasions done by the US - it will go into more pages than the Israel / Gaza thread Leo had to lock lol.

Just two years ago Imran Khan was taken out by corrupt elites thanks to US backing, which he boldly said was US was behind on Sky news. Meddling in a nuclear armed country sitting on fault line of another nuclear armed country (India) and with a population of over 230 million, talk about being a stabilising force in the world. All because he denied the US to use his country to host US bases and was on good terms with China/Russia.

 

Edited June 30 by zazen

[enchanted]

UKRAINE TRADED THEIR NUKES FOR SUPPORT, that's all you need to know and there isn't really much more to discuss. 

It was never agreed to in writing that NATO wouldn't expand. Besides, NATO expansion is a good thing. Some sort of world wide military alliance is what is needed for world peace. 

[zazen]

On 29/06/2024 at 0:35 PM, enchanted said:

UKRAINE TRADED THEIR NUKES FOR SUPPORT, that's all you need to know and there isn't really much more to discuss. 

It was never agreed to in writing that NATO wouldn't expand. Besides, NATO expansion is a good thing. Some sort of world wide military alliance is what is needed for world peace. 

Assurances aren’t guarantees but when you go back on your words that obviously erodes trust. Its wise to not erode trust with a powerful country and infringe on a comfort zone to avoid potential future conflicts. It’s not just a little oopsie when dealing with nuclear powers with apocalyptic arsenals. 

Its like a man saying to his partner “I won’t marry you on paper so our relationship isn’t bound in writing and you have no guarantee of a financial safety net if I were to get up and leave you as a single mum, but you have my assurance in word, don’t worry baby I love you - while he’s out on weekends being a pick up artist.”

You say expansion is good as if it has no consequence. NATO is viewed as some glorified neighbourhood watchdog on steroids armed to the teeth that whimpers when it comes into contact with a pit bull who bites back.