The Munich Security Conference has kicked off, and not surprisingly the Brussels nomenklatura and its attendant apparatchiks and media flacks are pushing war hysteria.
The cost of war for Europe would be horrendous. Few countries have experienced being under military attack for several decades. How hard can it be to come to terms with Russia over the Ukraine conflict. Their demands are fully legitimate and not hard to fulfill. It is only that Ukraine leadership as known today see themselves as a lethal enemy and refuse to make concessions.
I’m with you 100% on everything Richard… but boy I thought it was rich for them to kick the Ukrainian kid with his dead friends photos on his luge helmet out of the Olympics. This is a war all authorities championed, and now this young man can’t memorialize his friends.
Maybe kind of like our media not showing coffins coming back from foreign wars? 😢🤷♂️
"boy I thought it was rich for them to kick the Ukrainian kid with his dead friends photos on his luge helmet out of the Olympics. "
Like what, you're the guy who wants people who memorialize Nazis to use the Olympics to spread their propaganda? How many of those dead "friends" were involved in war crimes like cluster bombing civilians in Donbass or using civilian facilities as human shields throughout Ukraine?
Let's see how you complain when some "Olympian" wears a Hitler portrait on his helmet and does a Nazi salute on the stand if he or she wins a medal.
A friend in need becomes a source of irritation after a time. People's sympathy wears out.
I haven't seen a Ukrainian flag in years.
The poor bloody Ukrainians have outstayed their welcome in the msm.
I feel desperately sorry for the Ukrainian people (except the Banderites). They have trusted liars and been used. Now their country is in ruins and the future looks bleak.
True, "their demands are fully legitimate and not hard to fulfill" but this is a war to weaken Russia and Ukraine just happens to be the best venue for NATO to attempt this. Ukraine has no agency and therefore is a strategic dilemma for Russia.
As EU citizens we’re not given proof of a war weakening Russia, the same with Ukraine as a strategic dilemma for Russia. As EU citizens we see and experience everyday the economy weakening the same goes for Ukraine. All energy and vital life sources on the way down and how long before they become extinct? What’s more not only Europe but Ukraine with it will be me a desert, a wasteland of nearly all jobs disappearing in 5 or 10 years, and by then we can really go to war by necessity, survive or starve. The only goal of survival of the eurocrats, the sponsored by our taxes pedoclass is to push us to war, there’s no other way.
The true reasons for war are never given by the parasite caste that arrogantly hold ordinary people in contempt, but to put it plainly, this and near every previous war is for the benifit of the sociopathic parasitic elite, which therefore will always be aimed at weakening absolutely everyone else but the parasites.
And in the process to subjugate Europe and use it as a weapon against Russia (using European "meat") with the hopes of weakening Russia and ultimately delivering a crippling blow.
Russia already LOST 4years ago - last time I looked at a map, Estonia, Latvia and Finland are NATO from/pre big-boy Biden's era, that all border Russia, well within 'short-notice' nuclear striking distance to Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kaliningrad. Didn't 'paper tiger' Putinz in 2007 Munich Security Conf say no to NATO expansionism.
What is this phenomenal orgy obsession with the Ukraine.
In my opinion, it would be possible to make your stand by fighting Ukraine and doing so so ferociously that the west would back off the others, too. Of course you’d have to fight ferociously for that to work rather than treating the war as a popularity contest.
No, you don't have to fight "ferociously" you have to fight *effectively*, and that means using intelligence, as Russia is doing, and not simply blind ferocity.
Russia is defeating the US and the US's stooges. It's doing that in a neatly compartmented way that annihilates the economies of nearby adversaries like Germany while at the same time greatly reducing the military resources they have to fight a war with Russia.
It does that in two ways: first, Russia is simply destroying over a hundred billion dollars in EU military gear. second, Russia has destroyed the will of the US to provide a free military defense for the EU. Those bozos in the EU will have to pay their own way now and they don't have the money to do that, in part because their economies have so effectively been reduced by Russia's military action in Ukraine.
At the same time Russia's economy has grown phenomenally with dramatic expansion of very high profit, high strength, virtuous circle activities and dramatic reduction of strength sapping, debasing dependencies on a perverted West. It's really true that the US's actions have managed to accomplish what Russian administrations failed to do for thirty years: wean Russia off the opiate of the West, get the economy cleaned up like a junkie getting clean, and moving Russia onto the healthy path of internal development and building lasting, very profitable relationships with the rising powers of the East instead of the opium peddlers of the West.
Russia doesn't need the West, not for everything, and it doesn't give a flying fuck if every last pervert in the UK, France, Brussels, and Germany dies tomorrow. What Ukraine shows is that Russia is done with talking and has moved on to military technical means, with sensible people understanding the salad dressing about "always willing to talk" is about Russia always being willing to talk about the capitulation of Russia's adversaries.
Russia has no problem pushing forward to achieve what it has set out to achieve in Ukraine using military force, and doing so while minimizing casualties for Russians and while expanding Russia's economic power. It can turn that crank for another ten or twenty years, cheerfully turning Ukrainian nazis into corpses while EU economies keep getting worse and worse and the US continues to make enemies of everybody except a declining handful of partners in crime like Israel.
See the difference between not giving a shit what the West thinks and a popularity contest?
Baltic states have been in NATO since 2004, btw, sourpuss friend.
Finland? Whenever they get the opportunity to walk the talk, they chicken out. They know they exist because Stalin and USSR couldn't be bothered too much with them. Just a nuisance.
Finland may have lost some of its independence since the last round and may find chickening out inconvenient the next time. I don't think there are any nukes in the Baltic states, but sleepy joe specifically said he wanted them in Ukraine. For what that's worth.
There are many reasons why Ukraine is the ultimate proxy. One very important is mental disease of banderism, or judeo-banderism now. Their zero-sum ideology. Raison d'êtree being destruction of Russia. Unfortunately for them, they have been sour losers for a century now.
Putin has made a lot of promises about red lines that he then did not keep.
And the Baltic states should have been liquidated the moment they announced the intention to join NATO, same with Finland and Sweden in 2022 (which would not have happened had the Baltic red line been enforced previously).
Trump talks about how the US needs Greenland for national security. Which is total BS, but on the other hand Russia does need to control all of Northern Europe, and that is a genuine necessity.
This is in large part how Russia got so big, BTW. It was surrounded by hostile entities that attacked it, defeated them in long and bitter wars, absorbed them into Russia, rinse and repeat.
It is also why the 45 post-WWII years were the only time in its history the country managed to acquire that so desired safety buffer. It was still surrounded but there is a difference between the Red Army being in Berlin and the Nazis being in Kharkov.
The West is determined for some reason to play this game again. The problem for Russia is that with the current Russian elites they are allowed to play it.
And it might turn out that the window to do something about it will close soon, once the Europeans acquire nukes and medium-range missiles.
You need to get off the comments section and walk the talk. Nobody will deliver you another Soviet Union. Maybe join Srelkov this year in Slavyansk.Or are we too old already?
Balts probably decided to join the Nato when Putin was still a taxi driver.
"well within 'short-notice' nuclear striking distance to Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kaliningrad."
By God, that's stupid. Seems like the last time you "looked" at a map you didn't understand what you saw, and added to that an almost childish ignorance about nuclear anything.
Poland *borders* Kaliningrad. Doh. And, oh-my-gosh-this-is-harder-than-Tik-Tok, Kalingrad and St. Pete are *right on the Baltic Sea*! Wow! Who knew that? Those sneaky Russians must have been moving tectonic plates around.
So what could the Baltic Sea have to do with nuclear strikes? Let's see if anybody with an IQ over 40 knows the question. Aha! I see a hand raised there, in the back of the comments section, that kid with the glasses. What? Speak up!
I'll repeat what he said for those who didn't hear.
He said, "Well, gee whiz, Mr. Galtsky, everybody knows that. The US has been putting nuclear weapons into the Baltic Sea to strike Russia since the 1960s, about 70 years. They still have them there in missile-launching submarines. Adding launch bases in Finland or the Baltics doesn't change anything. It just adds costs for the US, reduces security, and causes political distractions."
Well, how about that! A child with glasses sitting quietly in the back of the room knows better than you.
I can't resist adding some information for intelligent people. In what follows I'll use miles instead of kilometers so that the people working for the US government who are reading this (congrats to Simp for hitting the big time!) can follow along.
What's interesting about "short-notice" nuclear strikes is how that game has been played since the late 1950's when it first dawned on the US that first strikes had to be missile strikes and an "Air Force" that at first bitterly resisted missiles came to embrace them, in fact embracing them so much they constantly got into fights with the Army about the Army's development of ballistic missiles. The Air Force wanted to run that show.
For over 70 years the intermediate range nukes, the ones the US built to strike Western Russia and targets like Kaliningrad, St. Pete, Moscow, etc. have been ballistic missiles. They don't fly on flat trajectories like cruise missiles. Instead, they shoot up into space to a remarkably high altitude, 600 miles in some cases, before arcing over the top of their high, parabolic trajectory to come diving down towards their targets.
That's why the very first launch systems used to get satellites, and even people, into space were repurposed military ballistic missiles like the Redstone rocket.
[A historical note: the first American into space, Alan Shepard, launched into space on a Redstone intermediate range (range about 175 to 200 miles, later around 250 to 300 miles) rocket developed by the Army (using its cadre of looted Nazi rocket scientists headed by uber-Nazi von Braun). Second in space was Gus Grissom, also on a Redstone. John Glenn was orbited on an Atlas ballistic missile developed by the military. The military's Titan II long range ballistic missile was used for Gemini manned missions in the 60's.]
That high parabola thing means there's not much of a difference in flight time between one of those missiles being used to strike a target 100 miles away or 500 miles away. It still spends most of its time flying way up into space on a ballistic trajectory before coming back down to the target.
One reason they do that is that there's no friction up in space and very little in the upper atmosphere. That allows more of the propellent energy to go into throwing more weight a greater distance than into fighting friction from thick air. Another benefit is the warhead package, the re-entry vehicle (RV), only has to endure very high heat over the short distance it travels in thick air on re-entry. That's why intermediate range nukes intended to arrive on target with short travel times have been ballistic missiles for over 70 years whether they are sub-launched missiles or ground launched missiles.
That air friction thing is a big deal. Suppose the US war plan called from launching nukes from Amari in Estonia at Moscow in a sneak attack. Moscow is about 550 miles from Amari. If they used intermediate range ballistic missiles the missile goes up about 250 miles into space in a big parabola before coming down at Moscow at high supersonic speed. But only the last ten miles of that is high supersonic in thick air and only the last 30 miles in any significant air. Boost in thickest air on the way up is when the missile is still gathering speed. Travel time would be about 20 minutes without making much of a difference whether the missile was launched from Amari, from Poland, from the Baltic, Finland, etc. Alan Shepard flew a similar trajectory to fly up about 115 miles to travel about 300 miles downrange, doing all that in a little over 15 minutes.
Compare that to using a hypersonic missile, which the US does not have but hey, let's play along to understand how this would work for the future. To fly hypersonic for 550 miles on a flat trajectory you'd need truly intense technology that the US has not been able to put together. It has to carry enough high energy propellant to punch through thick air for 550 miles. Almost certainly it wouldn't do that but would lift to 60,000 to 80,000 feet to reduce drag from thick air.
That, of course, makes it take a flat parabola and exposes it to radar and defenses from hundreds of miles around. Getting up that high also makes it possible for Russia to knock it down with nuclear tipped air defense missiles since explosions that high can be big enough to kill with near misses without damaging what's on the ground below.
That hypersonic missile would also have to be able to withstand very intense heating for all those 550 miles. That means you're not going to be able to use ablative heat shielding like an RV can. You'll need thicker, heavier materials to deal with the heat and even so the nuke and electronics in the interior will have to be able to withstand very high temperatures inside the missile. There will also be less payload given the weight of what you have to do to prevent the innards from melting or exploding, or components like the thermal batteries in a nuke igniting too soon. But you could cut the travel time to ten minutes if the US managed to do all that in some future world where Americans were no longer dead last in math and science among developed countries.
Just saying, it's obvious to everyone with an IQ over 40 that adding a few dwarfs to NATO on the periphery doesn't change the dynamics of offensive nuclear action by the US against Russia. It does, however, profoundly change the dynamics of a nuclear exchange for those countries, as they'd be depopulated in even a very limited, supposedly military-only exchange. The problem with having such tiny populations in such small spaces as you get with the Baltics is that Russian air defense using nuclear tipped missiles to intercept an incoming US or NATO attack has the side effect of eradicating those tiny Baltic populations, because Russia's defensive war will be fought with nuclear weapons over Baltic territory, not Russian territory.
That same effect is why the Germans wised up in the 70's and booted US intermediate nuclear missiles from Germany. They didn't like the idea of a nuclear war being fought in and over Germany with the result of 70% of their population being killed.
"Didn't 'paper tiger' Putinz in 2007 Munich Security Conf say no to NATO expansionism."
Ah, no, he didn't. I guess actually reading what he said is over your head. To paraphrase, he said it broke security and would bring war, as it has.
Wars are great for very unpopular leaders. They can bus of all those angry unemployed youth to take it out on some strawman enemy. Better than a pitchfork in the groin.
Planning for defense is quite different, it would seem to me, than planning for offense. These war games appear to involve a Europe attacked by Russia. What do they hope to gain from this? It flies in the face of a war to break Russia, bring it to its knees, partition it and grab its resources - none of that can be accomplished by planning for defense.
In provoking Russia to war they would immediately be put on the defensive as Russia would attack with ferocity and great power with a large war-honed army skilled in "war at a distance" and far more advanced weaponry causing great destruction among European cities.
So then, what are they hoping to accomplish through a European war? The damage to Europe would be extensive and they neither have the resources to re-build nor access to cheap energy. And the likelihood that such a war would lead to the destruction of Russia would be, quite frankly, a child's dream. Do they even think about this? Perhaps the elite, blinded by the desire for vengeance for past failures to subdue Russia and hopeful for a distraction from their economic failures, think that war is the answer as is the tradition. But that tradition is grounded on the ability to rebuild in the aftermath from their colonial roots. The problem is they have lost those colonial roots and therefore, the ability to use those colonial resources to rebuild.
So where would that leave them? Well, as the gentleman said, "We're fucked!".
Zugswang 101, Victor. As I said above, war is a great tool to weed out those that may use violence against their incompetent and corrupt leaders. Send them to battle against a strawman.
Do you think that maybe they really do think Russia will attack Europe? I'm pretty sure Russia won't as I don't see any good reason for them to invade the rest of Europe.
But are these other western leaders really afraid of an actual Russian invasion? Or would just rather provoke a war with Russia to avoid answering to their own citizens? Which I assume they will eventually have to answer to about getting them into an enormously costly war with Russia.
Of course Russia won't invade Europe. Europe has nothing Russia wants or needs. Russia has all the land it requires (and more!). It has all the natural resources it needs (and more). What it doesn't need is to conquer Europe and rule a resentful population.
"In provoking Russia to war they would immediately be put on the defensive as Russia would attack with ferocity and great power with a large war-honed army skilled in "war at a distance" and far more advanced weaponry causing great destruction among European cities."
They've been provoking a war with Russia for five or twenty years and have watched Ukraine be the designated target for five of those years. What about any of that would make them think Russia would attack with ferocity? I'm not saying it wouldn't, but so far the indications have been that Russia would hardly touch them. It would probably immediately seek negotiations and call daddy Trump a mediator again.
Maybe Iran's all out war strategy and threat might show a different way. This is a credible threat from Iran and if the US backs down or attacks but suffers unacceptable losses, maybe this will embolden others.
Maybe, but I think that Russia is not attacking European or American targets at present simply because they need to address the Ukrainian issue first as that will protect their western border which at present is highly vulnerable to NATO forces as long as Z (well, Z's puppeteer anyway) is in charge. Once the Ukraine issue is resolved, then it is a completely new game as Russia will not treat Europe as it treats what it considers its own people in Ukraine. Until then, I doubt that Russia wants to open a new front if at all possible.
That makes sense, but I was commenting as much about the way Russia is fighting Ukraine as its failure to fight Russia. I wonder if the Euros will regard the distinction between themselves and “its own people” as important. I know what’s been said, but I wonder too whether that’s an important factor after all. I’m afraid the Europeans are going to give us a chance to find out.
How did the war games handle nuclear strikes against EU capitals? I think Russia's red line will be direct action by NATO against Russian territory, especially threatening the loss of Kaliningrad. I know some people think Russia has no red lines, and will not retaliate against any NATO action, but people also thought Iran could only defend, and are shocked Iran will go all in if attacked.
I think Russia has not attacked any NATO assets outside of Ukraine because 1. they do not want to open a second front whilst they deal with Ukraine, their top priority, and 2. they needed to rebuild and further reinforce their military capabilities for the European campaign which I believe they think is inevitable - they are now a long ways towards accomplishing that ( you notice how much more aggressively they are talking against Western actions of late - they seem to be in the process of taking off the gloves).
But I might be wrong - they might just turn out to be weak-kneed pussies afraid to offend those tough Europeans.
When we view the complex Western war hysteria in present tense it simply does not make sense from a US/NATO angle, it never did. When you insert the present into the context of the last century and include the preplanned geopolitical maneuvers, the industrial self-destruction in the USA, the relentless drive to set up biological labs all over the planet plus this Western driven conflict inch by inch toward a nuclear war, there is ONLY ONE possible answer: At the Deep State level the decision is tending toward the extermination of the overwhelming majority of the planet’s population. In other words: We are into a conflict that will soon elevate a small minority into the full ownership position of this planet. UNLESS, a political awareness sweeps across the planet and stops the hysteria. Every single ‘leader’ pushing for war is directly attached to the deep state political elite. Those who dare to oppose are hunted like bunnies in Australia. (Sorry for the bad news.)
If true, and I am not arguing the valid point you make, the elites have again made a decision without thinking it through. They want to rid the earth of the vast majority of the useless eaters but they don't take into account the fact that they rely for their very lives on the work these people do to support industry, technology, infrastructure maintenance and development, and economies of scale (you need a lot of consumers to keep the products of manufacturing and service-driven industries cost affordable and even possible in some cases. Many of these elite would be destroying their own industries in such a pursuit. AI and robots are not going to do it for them - they don't shop, they don't eat, they don't need medical care, they don't need houses, they don't require banking services - you get my point.
The Elite Master Race is playing a game to secure their own survival. They cannot afford fractional Russian and/or Chinese survival with nukes in hand. They either have to make a deal with them or wipe them out fully. The survival of around 500 million people would be enough to create an industrial slave society that could recreate for the elite acceptable life standards. In their view the present oligarchic structure is unstable for them on the long run. They want security more than anything else. Of course the Neanderthal segment is also hungry for a final revenge but that is a 40,000 year old story and the majority will never get the point.
Any euro move to war against Russia would receive a fairly rapid spanking.
The only ones wanting it are women, whether biological or transgendered, and they aren't going to do the fighting.
Politically, most can see the stupidity and vacuousness of the so called leadership, and they will all be gone fairly soon, so all we need to do is wait for a while, and common sense will once again bloom in the garden of Europe.
I doubt it will come to a direct clash after this long. That horse bolted after the 2023 counter offensive proved that Russia wasn't going to collapse. That's why the Europeans are so adamant about a ceasefire. The chances of them entering a hot conflict are nil. They can train and equip Ukrainians and mercenaries and save the bad press.
A ceasefire seems to be a hope the west has, thinking Russia will take a nap while they, once again, try to prepare for real war. That's what the Minsk agreements were intended to do, too.
He brought peace to 8 wars. He cleaned out the swamp. He brought prosperity to America (his own personal and his friends). He showed that the Epstein files had nothing in them to defame anyone.
Yes, the personal enrichment is a bit much Victor. It’d be interesting if he started an Alaska type fund for the American people?
.
Epstein, USAID, NGOs, pulling us out of Anglo-arrangements like climate change, the border and deportations… And possibly disrupting narco-terrorism / money laundering networks.
I’m not an economist and won’t pretend to understand tariffs. Most articles on the subject are so politicized it’s hard to tell heads from tails. Kind of feel a gold reval at some point to lower the national debt. All over my head.
Of course, if Trump were to truly repudiate Israel he’d meet the same end as Charlie Kirk (they won’t miss a second time).
I’m afraid the Anglo-American-Zionist empire will never let go of Israeli expansion because of “routes and resources”. Kissinger may be proven wrong unfortunately
I read somewhere ( I think the Unz Review website) recently that the author proposes that we have all misinterpreted the Greater israel project of the zionists. He suggests that the project is not just the ME but the Western alliance centred in America - that Greater israel IS America from which the zionists will rule the world. I have a difficult time arguing with that.
I think the elites recognize how angry and potentially violent the disenfranchised and exploited underclass is and they are desperately hoping that war or some other distraction will save them from some well deserved guillotines.
Support for Europe is all but gone in the USA . What is Hilary Clinton and the AOC moron doing there ? . That ought to convince Europe how seriously we take them . We were going to send JD Vance again but didn’t want the European leaders going poo poo in their pants . I think they have still not recovered.
"The elites are in panic over how to convince their populaces to fan the flames of war ever higher. They are distraught that the peons are overly concerned with selfish pursuits like self-preservation, sustenance, taking care of their families, paying their mortgages, etc."
WTF is wrong with those peons, those peasants? How can they be concerned with their own needs and lives when there are higher things at stake? Things like concentrating more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands, deciding who gets to run the world in what manner, making sure that those on top of the heap get pushed even closer to the status of Godhood in which they have total control and the bottom of the pile has none?
As one of those peons, I say, let them panic. In fact, stoke the fire, because people, people everywhere, in all classes, castes, and societies do really stupid things and make really dumb mistakes when they are in a panic mode. We need to help them along.
It was Helmut Shmit in his parting message that stated he worry for Europe as he was one of the last European leaders who lived through the horrors of WW2.
European elites are horrified that their populations are unwilling to go die in far away lands. It is a travesty that Europeans are forced to depend on peace in a world their ancestors only made war.
While Europe is preparing to fight yesterday's war, Russia will defend themselves with long range precision.
The polls showing the peasants aren't excited to fight will probably reinvigorate the calls for conscription. Surely they will do that within the next year or so if they really plan to go to war.. And it looks like they do. May need Hegseth to come over and tell them to do it.
I agree, but not as an anti-feminist position. I think the political costs need to be spread equally so every supporter of war mongers faces the same fate.
I still harbor resentment about the Vietnam war . I never wound up going but 5 years of my life were ruined worrying about going . I was drafted finally and went to downtown LA with 200 other guys . I failed the physical drove home and got drunk . The women had not a care in the world for those 5 years yet marched for “ equal rights “ …my arse
If "the West" DOES do conscription, they need to throw out ALL of the past "deferments". No student deferments. No deferments for married/new children. No deferments on religious grounds. No deferments for "workers in critical industries" (banking is "critical", right? ; )
And absolutely no deferments for mysteriously self healing bone spurs or magical wartime only asthma.
What is unbelievable is the lack of voices to explain that security in Europe will necessarily have to include diplomacy and negotiations to limit risks of unwanted conflict and the ruin of the continent. Because the bleeding of the economies its not limited to Russia. And while this goes on, the US is busy focusing on the next generation of critical technologies that will help it maintain its leadership, even if it is no longer hegemony. Just watch the Musk interview at Davos, this is what the US is doing while Europe is busy sending the money it does not have to Ukraine and the MIC, and of course to continue paying for its suicidal immigration policies.
We are in Russia's 5th year of static, poorly planned WW1-type positional slaughterfest SMO war in Ukraine.
Russia is winning as expected, if winning means not defeating what was perceived as an existential threat, the encroachment of NATO through its Ukrainian proxy, on the Motherland.
That means after this never-ending war finally ends, Russia will not have terminated the existential threat it was supposed to end by leaving Ukraine still intact and in a good position to fight again by 2030, but this time backed by NATO with boots on the ground.
Then Russia will face a greater enemy in war again. The goal is not to defeat Russia but to apply constant pressure and wear it down, just like what we are seeing now.
Russia's failure was that its SMO was not prepared for what it got itself into.
Its army was so ill-prepared, corrupt, and poorly led that it had to retreat, change the military leadership, and address the corruption from the beginning of the SMO.
Such a degree of incompetence can't be overlooked because Russia has had to improvise ever since. The current static, attritional, and WW1 positional war wasn't planned because it's too costly in men and equipment, and the longer it takes to win.
Let's say the terms of peace include Russia keeping 4 oblasts.
Well, that doesn't eliminate NATO encroachment on Russia's border.
Russia's security is only minimally stronger than before the SMO.
NATO, seeing that AFU forces held, will be emboldened by Russian indecisiveness.
Europe's leaders want war because they need an excuse for their failed economies.
May as well send off the unemployed to fight and die a made-up enemy, rather than have them turn against their own leaders.
Sound military doctrine dictates to split your enemy's army by not letting its ally link up with it.
Then destroy one side, which only leaves the other half to deal with. Russia is doing the opposite. It will allow AFU forces to link up with fresh NATO forces. So if Russia can't defeat one army, how will it defeat two joined armies after it's already been fighting for 5 years or more?
The problem lies in the Kremlin.
Russian oligarchs are unable to separate from the West in pursuit of profit, not their country.
That's the bottom line.
They used an antiquated, corrupt, poorly led army to influence their interests, and it backfired.
Now they are eager to make a deal by not looking too aggressive in good faith to resume business. That's why Putin offered Trump a carrot to help develop resources in Ukraine and on Russian soil.
The thing is, when you say "Russian oligarchs are unable to separate from the West" I lose faith in your arguments. The Russia oligarchs were very publicly ostracised from the West during the sanctions. I only know of 1 case where a Russian oligarch has had any success fighting the sanctions. Loads of yachts and a football club says a lot. Which Russian oligarchs are you thinking of?
"Russia's failure was that its SMO was not prepared for what it got itself into."
Russia wasn't prepared? No shit, Sherlock. You must have listened to Putin's Feb 23rd 2022 speech. Whether this is a failure or not hasn't been decided by many, yourself excluded.
"Its army was so ill-prepared, corrupt, and poorly led that it had to retreat, change the military leadership, and address the corruption from the beginning of the SMO."
On this part I would only add that armies that don't fight usually suffer the same fate, so if Europe can find an army to field it will face the same growing pains. I guess Putin thought it would be negotiated so started the SMO with a token force, which was a big mistake as he has said.
With you as to the rest. Russia is not fighting to win the real war.
I AM curious about what it does regarding Cuba and Iran. Maybe it will surprise us and help.
The objective is not to win but to further weaken Russia in soldiers, weapons, and financial stability.
Even if NATO raises a small army of only 250,000 by 2030, it would be sufficient to reinforce AFU forces, made possible by Russia's negligence in not defeating Ukraine in a timely manner.
When confronted by two encroaching enemy forces, the goal should be to split those forces and destroy one side. Instead, Russia's strategic error is allowing NATO forces to link up with Ukrainian forces.
Even though Russia knows full well NATO is preparing to link up with Ukraine, it retains an archaic WW1 positional warfare, unsuitable when enemy forces intend to converge upon it.
That means Russia will have to fight twice as hard, absorbing twice as many men and material as if it had defeated Ukraine, making it nearly impossible for NATO to even think about gaining a foothold in Ukraine.
And what will Russia say then?
We didn't expect NATO to link up with the AFU forces, which we never fully defeated.
By golly, Russia gets fooled again.
Europe needs a war as an excuse for its failed economies, and sign up all the unemployed before they figure things out and turn on them.
If it quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
Enough with this lollygagging tomfoolery from Russia.
Russia should have one primary objective in light of the evidence before it.
Neutralize AFU forces to dissuade NATO from linking up.
Ukraine has no agency and is not actually Russia's main enemy. The post coup administrations are 100% controlled by external forces. The real enemy of Russia resides further West.
That means after this never-ending war finally ends, Russia will not have terminated the existential threat it was supposed to end by leaving Ukraine still intact and in a good position to fight again by 2030, but this time backed by NATO with boots on the ground. And what if you read a comic book, a Mickey Mouse one for example, and then came and gave us a summary? You could also fantasize about a pretty woman; that would be better understood.
Denis, Russians are not jews. Russians do not do Gaza and Libya.
Madam Albright (daughter of a Jewish thief Korbel) declared that death of one million Iraqi children “was worth it.” - This speaks for current zionized western mindset. The Russian have an opposite mentality. Don’t whine. Russians know what they’re doing.
The whole thing is a massive brain fart by the the Eurotwits for a few glaringly obvious reasons:
1. In 2 years maximum they will all be gone replaced by another generation of Eurotards. They can’t rebuild any substantial military capability in that time, assuming they have the cash, infrastructure and technical expertise, which they don’t
2. None of their iphone addicted people of military age are willing to die for anything. Not king, not country, not democracy, not Israel , not even their iPhone.
3. Even if they were willing to (in at least small numbers, having been convinced by playing Call of Duty for 8 hours a day that “war was cool”), said misspent youth playing war games, posting on social media and being subjected to western tertiary “education” means they will grow into effectively useless adults incapable of anything other than an opinion.
I suppose they could “online bully” the Russians to death, but unfortunately they have been told that calling people idiots on line is a war crime, even if there is no war. So yeah, tough one.
4. They are incapable of even accidentally starting a war as their cowardice will always override their stupidity as the Ukrainian thing has demonstrated.
5. They don’t actually believe what they spout anyway in most cases, though Kallas is apparently a standout in this regard as her stupidity is unparalleled to the extent that not only can she not hypnotise chickens, the chickens actually hypnotise her. Hence the expression on her face and why reporters are not allowed to bring wheat to her pressers.
The Europeans seem to be going further down their path of schizophrenia. Rutte's "snail's pace" criticism of Russia's military just doesn't quite match the Russia will attack narrative.
"The elites and their fourth estate grind their teeth over the lousy peons’ refusal to volunteer to die for the banking cabal’s ancestral blood feuds essential freedoms."
The cost of war for Europe would be horrendous. Few countries have experienced being under military attack for several decades. How hard can it be to come to terms with Russia over the Ukraine conflict. Their demands are fully legitimate and not hard to fulfill. It is only that Ukraine leadership as known today see themselves as a lethal enemy and refuse to make concessions.
They would have to convince the barefoot migrants and transgender freaks to enlist
I’m with you 100% on everything Richard… but boy I thought it was rich for them to kick the Ukrainian kid with his dead friends photos on his luge helmet out of the Olympics. This is a war all authorities championed, and now this young man can’t memorialize his friends.
Maybe kind of like our media not showing coffins coming back from foreign wars? 😢🤷♂️
It is just another iteration of emotional diplomacy. Maybe he could make stickers of press gangs mobilising those said Olympians.
Dude received some medal from Zelensky scum, the reason behind the demise of the sports men.
"boy I thought it was rich for them to kick the Ukrainian kid with his dead friends photos on his luge helmet out of the Olympics. "
Like what, you're the guy who wants people who memorialize Nazis to use the Olympics to spread their propaganda? How many of those dead "friends" were involved in war crimes like cluster bombing civilians in Donbass or using civilian facilities as human shields throughout Ukraine?
Let's see how you complain when some "Olympian" wears a Hitler portrait on his helmet and does a Nazi salute on the stand if he or she wins a medal.
A friend in need becomes a source of irritation after a time. People's sympathy wears out.
I haven't seen a Ukrainian flag in years.
The poor bloody Ukrainians have outstayed their welcome in the msm.
I feel desperately sorry for the Ukrainian people (except the Banderites). They have trusted liars and been used. Now their country is in ruins and the future looks bleak.
True, "their demands are fully legitimate and not hard to fulfill" but this is a war to weaken Russia and Ukraine just happens to be the best venue for NATO to attempt this. Ukraine has no agency and therefore is a strategic dilemma for Russia.
As EU citizens we’re not given proof of a war weakening Russia, the same with Ukraine as a strategic dilemma for Russia. As EU citizens we see and experience everyday the economy weakening the same goes for Ukraine. All energy and vital life sources on the way down and how long before they become extinct? What’s more not only Europe but Ukraine with it will be me a desert, a wasteland of nearly all jobs disappearing in 5 or 10 years, and by then we can really go to war by necessity, survive or starve. The only goal of survival of the eurocrats, the sponsored by our taxes pedoclass is to push us to war, there’s no other way.
Why call yourself "EU citizen", are you not a citizen of your home country?
The true reasons for war are never given by the parasite caste that arrogantly hold ordinary people in contempt, but to put it plainly, this and near every previous war is for the benifit of the sociopathic parasitic elite, which therefore will always be aimed at weakening absolutely everyone else but the parasites.
Ukraine's leadership is irrelevant. This war is being conducted by the US, with Ukrainians only supplying the KIAs.
And in the process to subjugate Europe and use it as a weapon against Russia (using European "meat") with the hopes of weakening Russia and ultimately delivering a crippling blow.
Yes, and of course Europe was a competitor, too, but no more.
Russia already LOST 4years ago - last time I looked at a map, Estonia, Latvia and Finland are NATO from/pre big-boy Biden's era, that all border Russia, well within 'short-notice' nuclear striking distance to Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kaliningrad. Didn't 'paper tiger' Putinz in 2007 Munich Security Conf say no to NATO expansionism.
What is this phenomenal orgy obsession with the Ukraine.
In my opinion, it would be possible to make your stand by fighting Ukraine and doing so so ferociously that the west would back off the others, too. Of course you’d have to fight ferociously for that to work rather than treating the war as a popularity contest.
No, you don't have to fight "ferociously" you have to fight *effectively*, and that means using intelligence, as Russia is doing, and not simply blind ferocity.
Russia is defeating the US and the US's stooges. It's doing that in a neatly compartmented way that annihilates the economies of nearby adversaries like Germany while at the same time greatly reducing the military resources they have to fight a war with Russia.
It does that in two ways: first, Russia is simply destroying over a hundred billion dollars in EU military gear. second, Russia has destroyed the will of the US to provide a free military defense for the EU. Those bozos in the EU will have to pay their own way now and they don't have the money to do that, in part because their economies have so effectively been reduced by Russia's military action in Ukraine.
At the same time Russia's economy has grown phenomenally with dramatic expansion of very high profit, high strength, virtuous circle activities and dramatic reduction of strength sapping, debasing dependencies on a perverted West. It's really true that the US's actions have managed to accomplish what Russian administrations failed to do for thirty years: wean Russia off the opiate of the West, get the economy cleaned up like a junkie getting clean, and moving Russia onto the healthy path of internal development and building lasting, very profitable relationships with the rising powers of the East instead of the opium peddlers of the West.
Russia doesn't need the West, not for everything, and it doesn't give a flying fuck if every last pervert in the UK, France, Brussels, and Germany dies tomorrow. What Ukraine shows is that Russia is done with talking and has moved on to military technical means, with sensible people understanding the salad dressing about "always willing to talk" is about Russia always being willing to talk about the capitulation of Russia's adversaries.
Russia has no problem pushing forward to achieve what it has set out to achieve in Ukraine using military force, and doing so while minimizing casualties for Russians and while expanding Russia's economic power. It can turn that crank for another ten or twenty years, cheerfully turning Ukrainian nazis into corpses while EU economies keep getting worse and worse and the US continues to make enemies of everybody except a declining handful of partners in crime like Israel.
See the difference between not giving a shit what the West thinks and a popularity contest?
I wish I could give you two likes for this John.
I think your analysis is absolutely spot on.
Baltic states have been in NATO since 2004, btw, sourpuss friend.
Finland? Whenever they get the opportunity to walk the talk, they chicken out. They know they exist because Stalin and USSR couldn't be bothered too much with them. Just a nuisance.
Finland may have lost some of its independence since the last round and may find chickening out inconvenient the next time. I don't think there are any nukes in the Baltic states, but sleepy joe specifically said he wanted them in Ukraine. For what that's worth.
And what happens if they don't chicken out?
There are many reasons why Ukraine is the ultimate proxy. One very important is mental disease of banderism, or judeo-banderism now. Their zero-sum ideology. Raison d'êtree being destruction of Russia. Unfortunately for them, they have been sour losers for a century now.
Putin has made a lot of promises about red lines that he then did not keep.
And the Baltic states should have been liquidated the moment they announced the intention to join NATO, same with Finland and Sweden in 2022 (which would not have happened had the Baltic red line been enforced previously).
Trump talks about how the US needs Greenland for national security. Which is total BS, but on the other hand Russia does need to control all of Northern Europe, and that is a genuine necessity.
This is in large part how Russia got so big, BTW. It was surrounded by hostile entities that attacked it, defeated them in long and bitter wars, absorbed them into Russia, rinse and repeat.
It is also why the 45 post-WWII years were the only time in its history the country managed to acquire that so desired safety buffer. It was still surrounded but there is a difference between the Red Army being in Berlin and the Nazis being in Kharkov.
The West is determined for some reason to play this game again. The problem for Russia is that with the current Russian elites they are allowed to play it.
And it might turn out that the window to do something about it will close soon, once the Europeans acquire nukes and medium-range missiles.
You need to get off the comments section and walk the talk. Nobody will deliver you another Soviet Union. Maybe join Srelkov this year in Slavyansk.Or are we too old already?
Balts probably decided to join the Nato when Putin was still a taxi driver.
"well within 'short-notice' nuclear striking distance to Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kaliningrad."
By God, that's stupid. Seems like the last time you "looked" at a map you didn't understand what you saw, and added to that an almost childish ignorance about nuclear anything.
Poland *borders* Kaliningrad. Doh. And, oh-my-gosh-this-is-harder-than-Tik-Tok, Kalingrad and St. Pete are *right on the Baltic Sea*! Wow! Who knew that? Those sneaky Russians must have been moving tectonic plates around.
So what could the Baltic Sea have to do with nuclear strikes? Let's see if anybody with an IQ over 40 knows the question. Aha! I see a hand raised there, in the back of the comments section, that kid with the glasses. What? Speak up!
I'll repeat what he said for those who didn't hear.
He said, "Well, gee whiz, Mr. Galtsky, everybody knows that. The US has been putting nuclear weapons into the Baltic Sea to strike Russia since the 1960s, about 70 years. They still have them there in missile-launching submarines. Adding launch bases in Finland or the Baltics doesn't change anything. It just adds costs for the US, reduces security, and causes political distractions."
Well, how about that! A child with glasses sitting quietly in the back of the room knows better than you.
I can't resist adding some information for intelligent people. In what follows I'll use miles instead of kilometers so that the people working for the US government who are reading this (congrats to Simp for hitting the big time!) can follow along.
What's interesting about "short-notice" nuclear strikes is how that game has been played since the late 1950's when it first dawned on the US that first strikes had to be missile strikes and an "Air Force" that at first bitterly resisted missiles came to embrace them, in fact embracing them so much they constantly got into fights with the Army about the Army's development of ballistic missiles. The Air Force wanted to run that show.
For over 70 years the intermediate range nukes, the ones the US built to strike Western Russia and targets like Kaliningrad, St. Pete, Moscow, etc. have been ballistic missiles. They don't fly on flat trajectories like cruise missiles. Instead, they shoot up into space to a remarkably high altitude, 600 miles in some cases, before arcing over the top of their high, parabolic trajectory to come diving down towards their targets.
That's why the very first launch systems used to get satellites, and even people, into space were repurposed military ballistic missiles like the Redstone rocket.
[A historical note: the first American into space, Alan Shepard, launched into space on a Redstone intermediate range (range about 175 to 200 miles, later around 250 to 300 miles) rocket developed by the Army (using its cadre of looted Nazi rocket scientists headed by uber-Nazi von Braun). Second in space was Gus Grissom, also on a Redstone. John Glenn was orbited on an Atlas ballistic missile developed by the military. The military's Titan II long range ballistic missile was used for Gemini manned missions in the 60's.]
That high parabola thing means there's not much of a difference in flight time between one of those missiles being used to strike a target 100 miles away or 500 miles away. It still spends most of its time flying way up into space on a ballistic trajectory before coming back down to the target.
One reason they do that is that there's no friction up in space and very little in the upper atmosphere. That allows more of the propellent energy to go into throwing more weight a greater distance than into fighting friction from thick air. Another benefit is the warhead package, the re-entry vehicle (RV), only has to endure very high heat over the short distance it travels in thick air on re-entry. That's why intermediate range nukes intended to arrive on target with short travel times have been ballistic missiles for over 70 years whether they are sub-launched missiles or ground launched missiles.
That air friction thing is a big deal. Suppose the US war plan called from launching nukes from Amari in Estonia at Moscow in a sneak attack. Moscow is about 550 miles from Amari. If they used intermediate range ballistic missiles the missile goes up about 250 miles into space in a big parabola before coming down at Moscow at high supersonic speed. But only the last ten miles of that is high supersonic in thick air and only the last 30 miles in any significant air. Boost in thickest air on the way up is when the missile is still gathering speed. Travel time would be about 20 minutes without making much of a difference whether the missile was launched from Amari, from Poland, from the Baltic, Finland, etc. Alan Shepard flew a similar trajectory to fly up about 115 miles to travel about 300 miles downrange, doing all that in a little over 15 minutes.
Compare that to using a hypersonic missile, which the US does not have but hey, let's play along to understand how this would work for the future. To fly hypersonic for 550 miles on a flat trajectory you'd need truly intense technology that the US has not been able to put together. It has to carry enough high energy propellant to punch through thick air for 550 miles. Almost certainly it wouldn't do that but would lift to 60,000 to 80,000 feet to reduce drag from thick air.
That, of course, makes it take a flat parabola and exposes it to radar and defenses from hundreds of miles around. Getting up that high also makes it possible for Russia to knock it down with nuclear tipped air defense missiles since explosions that high can be big enough to kill with near misses without damaging what's on the ground below.
That hypersonic missile would also have to be able to withstand very intense heating for all those 550 miles. That means you're not going to be able to use ablative heat shielding like an RV can. You'll need thicker, heavier materials to deal with the heat and even so the nuke and electronics in the interior will have to be able to withstand very high temperatures inside the missile. There will also be less payload given the weight of what you have to do to prevent the innards from melting or exploding, or components like the thermal batteries in a nuke igniting too soon. But you could cut the travel time to ten minutes if the US managed to do all that in some future world where Americans were no longer dead last in math and science among developed countries.
Just saying, it's obvious to everyone with an IQ over 40 that adding a few dwarfs to NATO on the periphery doesn't change the dynamics of offensive nuclear action by the US against Russia. It does, however, profoundly change the dynamics of a nuclear exchange for those countries, as they'd be depopulated in even a very limited, supposedly military-only exchange. The problem with having such tiny populations in such small spaces as you get with the Baltics is that Russian air defense using nuclear tipped missiles to intercept an incoming US or NATO attack has the side effect of eradicating those tiny Baltic populations, because Russia's defensive war will be fought with nuclear weapons over Baltic territory, not Russian territory.
That same effect is why the Germans wised up in the 70's and booted US intermediate nuclear missiles from Germany. They didn't like the idea of a nuclear war being fought in and over Germany with the result of 70% of their population being killed.
"Didn't 'paper tiger' Putinz in 2007 Munich Security Conf say no to NATO expansionism."
Ah, no, he didn't. I guess actually reading what he said is over your head. To paraphrase, he said it broke security and would bring war, as it has.
"How hard can it be to come to terms with Russia over the Ukraine conflict."
Yours is a generous, kindly and humane question. Salute!
Sadly, for us the little people, WAR is VERY and verily profitable...
as in boodles of treasure is to be mined in all that blood and gore.
Our rulers generously take time off from diddling the kids on Jeff's
Gruesome Island to send other kids off to fight in foolish yet very profitable wars.
Evil times two.
Mo' money! Mo' money! Mo' Money!
Wars are great for very unpopular leaders. They can bus of all those angry unemployed youth to take it out on some strawman enemy. Better than a pitchfork in the groin.
abcdefg. Some wars are. But war is unpredictable. Ask Tsar Nicholas III, or Mussolini.
Planning for defense is quite different, it would seem to me, than planning for offense. These war games appear to involve a Europe attacked by Russia. What do they hope to gain from this? It flies in the face of a war to break Russia, bring it to its knees, partition it and grab its resources - none of that can be accomplished by planning for defense.
In provoking Russia to war they would immediately be put on the defensive as Russia would attack with ferocity and great power with a large war-honed army skilled in "war at a distance" and far more advanced weaponry causing great destruction among European cities.
So then, what are they hoping to accomplish through a European war? The damage to Europe would be extensive and they neither have the resources to re-build nor access to cheap energy. And the likelihood that such a war would lead to the destruction of Russia would be, quite frankly, a child's dream. Do they even think about this? Perhaps the elite, blinded by the desire for vengeance for past failures to subdue Russia and hopeful for a distraction from their economic failures, think that war is the answer as is the tradition. But that tradition is grounded on the ability to rebuild in the aftermath from their colonial roots. The problem is they have lost those colonial roots and therefore, the ability to use those colonial resources to rebuild.
So where would that leave them? Well, as the gentleman said, "We're fucked!".
Zugswang 101, Victor. As I said above, war is a great tool to weed out those that may use violence against their incompetent and corrupt leaders. Send them to battle against a strawman.
Do you think that maybe they really do think Russia will attack Europe? I'm pretty sure Russia won't as I don't see any good reason for them to invade the rest of Europe.
But are these other western leaders really afraid of an actual Russian invasion? Or would just rather provoke a war with Russia to avoid answering to their own citizens? Which I assume they will eventually have to answer to about getting them into an enormously costly war with Russia.
Of course Russia won't invade Europe. Europe has nothing Russia wants or needs. Russia has all the land it requires (and more!). It has all the natural resources it needs (and more). What it doesn't need is to conquer Europe and rule a resentful population.
Exactly what I think.
"In provoking Russia to war they would immediately be put on the defensive as Russia would attack with ferocity and great power with a large war-honed army skilled in "war at a distance" and far more advanced weaponry causing great destruction among European cities."
They've been provoking a war with Russia for five or twenty years and have watched Ukraine be the designated target for five of those years. What about any of that would make them think Russia would attack with ferocity? I'm not saying it wouldn't, but so far the indications have been that Russia would hardly touch them. It would probably immediately seek negotiations and call daddy Trump a mediator again.
Maybe Iran's all out war strategy and threat might show a different way. This is a credible threat from Iran and if the US backs down or attacks but suffers unacceptable losses, maybe this will embolden others.
Yeah maybe. Especially if they actually do it. Sounds like they will, but I thought they’d go further last time than they did.
Maybe, but I think that Russia is not attacking European or American targets at present simply because they need to address the Ukrainian issue first as that will protect their western border which at present is highly vulnerable to NATO forces as long as Z (well, Z's puppeteer anyway) is in charge. Once the Ukraine issue is resolved, then it is a completely new game as Russia will not treat Europe as it treats what it considers its own people in Ukraine. Until then, I doubt that Russia wants to open a new front if at all possible.
That makes sense, but I was commenting as much about the way Russia is fighting Ukraine as its failure to fight Russia. I wonder if the Euros will regard the distinction between themselves and “its own people” as important. I know what’s been said, but I wonder too whether that’s an important factor after all. I’m afraid the Europeans are going to give us a chance to find out.
How did the war games handle nuclear strikes against EU capitals? I think Russia's red line will be direct action by NATO against Russian territory, especially threatening the loss of Kaliningrad. I know some people think Russia has no red lines, and will not retaliate against any NATO action, but people also thought Iran could only defend, and are shocked Iran will go all in if attacked.
I think Russia has not attacked any NATO assets outside of Ukraine because 1. they do not want to open a second front whilst they deal with Ukraine, their top priority, and 2. they needed to rebuild and further reinforce their military capabilities for the European campaign which I believe they think is inevitable - they are now a long ways towards accomplishing that ( you notice how much more aggressively they are talking against Western actions of late - they seem to be in the process of taking off the gloves).
But I might be wrong - they might just turn out to be weak-kneed pussies afraid to offend those tough Europeans.
When we view the complex Western war hysteria in present tense it simply does not make sense from a US/NATO angle, it never did. When you insert the present into the context of the last century and include the preplanned geopolitical maneuvers, the industrial self-destruction in the USA, the relentless drive to set up biological labs all over the planet plus this Western driven conflict inch by inch toward a nuclear war, there is ONLY ONE possible answer: At the Deep State level the decision is tending toward the extermination of the overwhelming majority of the planet’s population. In other words: We are into a conflict that will soon elevate a small minority into the full ownership position of this planet. UNLESS, a political awareness sweeps across the planet and stops the hysteria. Every single ‘leader’ pushing for war is directly attached to the deep state political elite. Those who dare to oppose are hunted like bunnies in Australia. (Sorry for the bad news.)
If true, and I am not arguing the valid point you make, the elites have again made a decision without thinking it through. They want to rid the earth of the vast majority of the useless eaters but they don't take into account the fact that they rely for their very lives on the work these people do to support industry, technology, infrastructure maintenance and development, and economies of scale (you need a lot of consumers to keep the products of manufacturing and service-driven industries cost affordable and even possible in some cases. Many of these elite would be destroying their own industries in such a pursuit. AI and robots are not going to do it for them - they don't shop, they don't eat, they don't need medical care, they don't need houses, they don't require banking services - you get my point.
The Elite Master Race is playing a game to secure their own survival. They cannot afford fractional Russian and/or Chinese survival with nukes in hand. They either have to make a deal with them or wipe them out fully. The survival of around 500 million people would be enough to create an industrial slave society that could recreate for the elite acceptable life standards. In their view the present oligarchic structure is unstable for them on the long run. They want security more than anything else. Of course the Neanderthal segment is also hungry for a final revenge but that is a 40,000 year old story and the majority will never get the point.
Any euro move to war against Russia would receive a fairly rapid spanking.
The only ones wanting it are women, whether biological or transgendered, and they aren't going to do the fighting.
Politically, most can see the stupidity and vacuousness of the so called leadership, and they will all be gone fairly soon, so all we need to do is wait for a while, and common sense will once again bloom in the garden of Europe.
There are only weeds in that garden, unfortunately.
AfD certainly have a far more realistic approach to the "Russian Problem" than anything presently offering itself, bar Hungary, of course.
Not sure about le Pen's people, but probably them too, with the added bonus of repatriation for incomers.
Changes are afoot.
We do not know if AfD's approach is sincere. I have a feeling she is more like Meloni.
What can you do to stand up to the country that supplies all of your energy, after seppukuing yourself from the cheaper alternative?
Blow Jo all your NUCLEAR plants like Germany did ?
The europeans are psyching themselves up to enter the war directly. Then they will run screaming to the Americans and demand to be rescued.
The european political class has no priority other than the War On Russia.
I doubt it will come to a direct clash after this long. That horse bolted after the 2023 counter offensive proved that Russia wasn't going to collapse. That's why the Europeans are so adamant about a ceasefire. The chances of them entering a hot conflict are nil. They can train and equip Ukrainians and mercenaries and save the bad press.
A ceasefire seems to be a hope the west has, thinking Russia will take a nap while they, once again, try to prepare for real war. That's what the Minsk agreements were intended to do, too.
There is a saying in Russia that they are slow to mount their horse but are very fast riders.
Until 2029 , coming to the USA for help is a non starter
Yes, I think they got Trump's message loud and clear. FAFO.
Yeah, come on all of you, big strong men
Fond of Lyin' needs your help again
She's got himself in a terrible jam
Way down yonder in Donbass man
So put down your books, pick up a gun
Gonna have a whole lot of fun
(Chorus)
And it's 1, 2, 3
What are we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn
Next stop is Donbass man
And it's 5, 6, 7
Open up the pearly gates
Ah, ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee!
We're all gonna die
Well come on Generals let's move fast
Your big chance has come at last
Gotta go out, get those reds
The only good Ruskie is the one that's dead
And you know that peace could only be won
When we've blown them all to kingdom come
(Chorus)
Well come on Bankers don't move slow
Why man, this is war-a-go-go
There's plenty good money to be made
By supplying the Wehrmacht with the tools of the trade
Just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb
They drop it on Vlad Putin's home
(Chorus)
Well come on mothers throughout Euroland
Pack your boys off to Donbass ma'am
Come on fathers don't hesitate
Send them off before it's too late
Be the first one on your block
To have your boy come home in a box
(Chorus)
Man, I think Trump has hit on about half a dozen of his promises. I should right them down.
Without the Zionist money, Kamala is our president. Ultimately I hope Trump puts them in their place.
People aren’t talking about it enough, but the Epstein files DO NOT make Israel look good
You mean because he was working with Robert Maxwell ?
I think Maxwell knew someone in Israel
"I think Trump has hit on about half a dozen of his promises. I should right them down."
Please do. I would like to see such a list of 'accomplishments'.
I'm sure he didn't promise this but he has accomplished this:
Kidnap a foreign leader - check.
Attack Iran - check.
I'm sure there are a few others....
:)
He brought peace to 8 wars. He cleaned out the swamp. He brought prosperity to America (his own personal and his friends). He showed that the Epstein files had nothing in them to defame anyone.
I'm sure there are many more to list.
Yes, the personal enrichment is a bit much Victor. It’d be interesting if he started an Alaska type fund for the American people?
.
Epstein, USAID, NGOs, pulling us out of Anglo-arrangements like climate change, the border and deportations… And possibly disrupting narco-terrorism / money laundering networks.
I’m not an economist and won’t pretend to understand tariffs. Most articles on the subject are so politicized it’s hard to tell heads from tails. Kind of feel a gold reval at some point to lower the national debt. All over my head.
Of course, if Trump were to truly repudiate Israel he’d meet the same end as Charlie Kirk (they won’t miss a second time).
I’m afraid the Anglo-American-Zionist empire will never let go of Israeli expansion because of “routes and resources”. Kissinger may be proven wrong unfortunately
I read somewhere ( I think the Unz Review website) recently that the author proposes that we have all misinterpreted the Greater israel project of the zionists. He suggests that the project is not just the ME but the Western alliance centred in America - that Greater israel IS America from which the zionists will rule the world. I have a difficult time arguing with that.
Country Joe
And the Fish.
The game never changes, just the geography.
For those younger than some of us, this is a play on the Country Joe and the Fish song from the Vietnam days.
Saw them do it as the Isle of Wight festival probably before most of you were born.
I think the elites recognize how angry and potentially violent the disenfranchised and exploited underclass is and they are desperately hoping that war or some other distraction will save them from some well deserved guillotines.
Unfortunately for them (and us as well), they are not thinking it through to its logical end.
Munich Insecurity Conference. The best one was 2007.
Correct . When did George “ wish I had a brain “ Bush say ..” Ukraine will be in NATO “ ?
Support for Europe is all but gone in the USA . What is Hilary Clinton and the AOC moron doing there ? . That ought to convince Europe how seriously we take them . We were going to send JD Vance again but didn’t want the European leaders going poo poo in their pants . I think they have still not recovered.
Genocide was always part of the plan. The satanic filth exposed by just the files released so far confirms it.
Satan is being revealed.
"The elites are in panic over how to convince their populaces to fan the flames of war ever higher. They are distraught that the peons are overly concerned with selfish pursuits like self-preservation, sustenance, taking care of their families, paying their mortgages, etc."
WTF is wrong with those peons, those peasants? How can they be concerned with their own needs and lives when there are higher things at stake? Things like concentrating more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands, deciding who gets to run the world in what manner, making sure that those on top of the heap get pushed even closer to the status of Godhood in which they have total control and the bottom of the pile has none?
As one of those peons, I say, let them panic. In fact, stoke the fire, because people, people everywhere, in all classes, castes, and societies do really stupid things and make really dumb mistakes when they are in a panic mode. We need to help them along.
Let the elite eat cake!
It was Helmut Shmit in his parting message that stated he worry for Europe as he was one of the last European leaders who lived through the horrors of WW2.
European elites are horrified that their populations are unwilling to go die in far away lands. It is a travesty that Europeans are forced to depend on peace in a world their ancestors only made war.
While Europe is preparing to fight yesterday's war, Russia will defend themselves with long range precision.
The polls showing the peasants aren't excited to fight will probably reinvigorate the calls for conscription. Surely they will do that within the next year or so if they really plan to go to war.. And it looks like they do. May need Hegseth to come over and tell them to do it.
In the west, when conscriptions start, women need to be included in call. Equality has its cost!
I agree, but not as an anti-feminist position. I think the political costs need to be spread equally so every supporter of war mongers faces the same fate.
It is that simple!
I still harbor resentment about the Vietnam war . I never wound up going but 5 years of my life were ruined worrying about going . I was drafted finally and went to downtown LA with 200 other guys . I failed the physical drove home and got drunk . The women had not a care in the world for those 5 years yet marched for “ equal rights “ …my arse
If "the West" DOES do conscription, they need to throw out ALL of the past "deferments". No student deferments. No deferments for married/new children. No deferments on religious grounds. No deferments for "workers in critical industries" (banking is "critical", right? ; )
And absolutely no deferments for mysteriously self healing bone spurs or magical wartime only asthma.
What is unbelievable is the lack of voices to explain that security in Europe will necessarily have to include diplomacy and negotiations to limit risks of unwanted conflict and the ruin of the continent. Because the bleeding of the economies its not limited to Russia. And while this goes on, the US is busy focusing on the next generation of critical technologies that will help it maintain its leadership, even if it is no longer hegemony. Just watch the Musk interview at Davos, this is what the US is doing while Europe is busy sending the money it does not have to Ukraine and the MIC, and of course to continue paying for its suicidal immigration policies.
We are in Russia's 5th year of static, poorly planned WW1-type positional slaughterfest SMO war in Ukraine.
Russia is winning as expected, if winning means not defeating what was perceived as an existential threat, the encroachment of NATO through its Ukrainian proxy, on the Motherland.
That means after this never-ending war finally ends, Russia will not have terminated the existential threat it was supposed to end by leaving Ukraine still intact and in a good position to fight again by 2030, but this time backed by NATO with boots on the ground.
Then Russia will face a greater enemy in war again. The goal is not to defeat Russia but to apply constant pressure and wear it down, just like what we are seeing now.
Russia's failure was that its SMO was not prepared for what it got itself into.
Its army was so ill-prepared, corrupt, and poorly led that it had to retreat, change the military leadership, and address the corruption from the beginning of the SMO.
Such a degree of incompetence can't be overlooked because Russia has had to improvise ever since. The current static, attritional, and WW1 positional war wasn't planned because it's too costly in men and equipment, and the longer it takes to win.
Let's say the terms of peace include Russia keeping 4 oblasts.
Well, that doesn't eliminate NATO encroachment on Russia's border.
Russia's security is only minimally stronger than before the SMO.
NATO, seeing that AFU forces held, will be emboldened by Russian indecisiveness.
Europe's leaders want war because they need an excuse for their failed economies.
May as well send off the unemployed to fight and die a made-up enemy, rather than have them turn against their own leaders.
Sound military doctrine dictates to split your enemy's army by not letting its ally link up with it.
Then destroy one side, which only leaves the other half to deal with. Russia is doing the opposite. It will allow AFU forces to link up with fresh NATO forces. So if Russia can't defeat one army, how will it defeat two joined armies after it's already been fighting for 5 years or more?
The problem lies in the Kremlin.
Russian oligarchs are unable to separate from the West in pursuit of profit, not their country.
That's the bottom line.
They used an antiquated, corrupt, poorly led army to influence their interests, and it backfired.
Now they are eager to make a deal by not looking too aggressive in good faith to resume business. That's why Putin offered Trump a carrot to help develop resources in Ukraine and on Russian soil.
Follow the money.
I think you’re grossly underestimating Russia. FAFO.
Shock & Awe is a cheap fix, Russia appears to want a successful fix!
"The goal is not to defeat Russia but to apply constant pressure and wear it down"
Right, so you're saying Russia is right to be conserving their military and beating NATO at their own game. Wow, Denis!
You twist a few words I say to suit your own agenda.
You must look at the whole comprehensively to get the full message.
You know that, wow.
The thing is, when you say "Russian oligarchs are unable to separate from the West" I lose faith in your arguments. The Russia oligarchs were very publicly ostracised from the West during the sanctions. I only know of 1 case where a Russian oligarch has had any success fighting the sanctions. Loads of yachts and a football club says a lot. Which Russian oligarchs are you thinking of?
The comment is from Dr. Lusci and others.
Which Russian oligarchs are you talking about, Denis?
"Russia's failure was that its SMO was not prepared for what it got itself into."
Russia wasn't prepared? No shit, Sherlock. You must have listened to Putin's Feb 23rd 2022 speech. Whether this is a failure or not hasn't been decided by many, yourself excluded.
Emotions, Alphabet?
"Its army was so ill-prepared, corrupt, and poorly led that it had to retreat, change the military leadership, and address the corruption from the beginning of the SMO."
On this part I would only add that armies that don't fight usually suffer the same fate, so if Europe can find an army to field it will face the same growing pains. I guess Putin thought it would be negotiated so started the SMO with a token force, which was a big mistake as he has said.
With you as to the rest. Russia is not fighting to win the real war.
I AM curious about what it does regarding Cuba and Iran. Maybe it will surprise us and help.
When to matters of national security, never try to fake it. lol
Everybody does. I’m not sure the US army doesn’t have more generals than soldiers, and did you ever see such an unqualified bunch?
Europe is preparing for war against Russia.
The objective is not to win but to further weaken Russia in soldiers, weapons, and financial stability.
Even if NATO raises a small army of only 250,000 by 2030, it would be sufficient to reinforce AFU forces, made possible by Russia's negligence in not defeating Ukraine in a timely manner.
When confronted by two encroaching enemy forces, the goal should be to split those forces and destroy one side. Instead, Russia's strategic error is allowing NATO forces to link up with Ukrainian forces.
Even though Russia knows full well NATO is preparing to link up with Ukraine, it retains an archaic WW1 positional warfare, unsuitable when enemy forces intend to converge upon it.
That means Russia will have to fight twice as hard, absorbing twice as many men and material as if it had defeated Ukraine, making it nearly impossible for NATO to even think about gaining a foothold in Ukraine.
And what will Russia say then?
We didn't expect NATO to link up with the AFU forces, which we never fully defeated.
By golly, Russia gets fooled again.
Europe needs a war as an excuse for its failed economies, and sign up all the unemployed before they figure things out and turn on them.
If it quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
Enough with this lollygagging tomfoolery from Russia.
Russia should have one primary objective in light of the evidence before it.
Neutralize AFU forces to dissuade NATO from linking up.
It is the way of VICTORY. (General Denisimov) lol
Enough with the excuses.
Logic dictates Ukraine must be defeated.
TINA- there is no alternative.
Ukraine has no agency and is not actually Russia's main enemy. The post coup administrations are 100% controlled by external forces. The real enemy of Russia resides further West.
Ukraine has been defeated.
Now all Russia has to do is to defeat its backers.
That means after this never-ending war finally ends, Russia will not have terminated the existential threat it was supposed to end by leaving Ukraine still intact and in a good position to fight again by 2030, but this time backed by NATO with boots on the ground. And what if you read a comic book, a Mickey Mouse one for example, and then came and gave us a summary? You could also fantasize about a pretty woman; that would be better understood.
E.H., man, the only thing I fantasize about is how not to get screwed over by this staged and theatric world we live in. lol
Mickey Mouse, haha,
Just say I don't agree with you and here's why, and stop sulking like a drama queen. 😂
Denis, Russians are not jews. Russians do not do Gaza and Libya.
Madam Albright (daughter of a Jewish thief Korbel) declared that death of one million Iraqi children “was worth it.” - This speaks for current zionized western mindset. The Russian have an opposite mentality. Don’t whine. Russians know what they’re doing.
We are still waiting for your one year plan ppt lmao
Greetings, Comrade Alyo:
I already made today's statement.
Well, the plan is under a year from the first point of friction.
I will update what I wrote specifically to you, comrade, as soon as my next comment.
I will call it Operation Thunder Storm or maybe Propane n Lightning. haha.
Davai
The whole thing is a massive brain fart by the the Eurotwits for a few glaringly obvious reasons:
1. In 2 years maximum they will all be gone replaced by another generation of Eurotards. They can’t rebuild any substantial military capability in that time, assuming they have the cash, infrastructure and technical expertise, which they don’t
2. None of their iphone addicted people of military age are willing to die for anything. Not king, not country, not democracy, not Israel , not even their iPhone.
3. Even if they were willing to (in at least small numbers, having been convinced by playing Call of Duty for 8 hours a day that “war was cool”), said misspent youth playing war games, posting on social media and being subjected to western tertiary “education” means they will grow into effectively useless adults incapable of anything other than an opinion.
I suppose they could “online bully” the Russians to death, but unfortunately they have been told that calling people idiots on line is a war crime, even if there is no war. So yeah, tough one.
4. They are incapable of even accidentally starting a war as their cowardice will always override their stupidity as the Ukrainian thing has demonstrated.
5. They don’t actually believe what they spout anyway in most cases, though Kallas is apparently a standout in this regard as her stupidity is unparalleled to the extent that not only can she not hypnotise chickens, the chickens actually hypnotise her. Hence the expression on her face and why reporters are not allowed to bring wheat to her pressers.
The Europeans seem to be going further down their path of schizophrenia. Rutte's "snail's pace" criticism of Russia's military just doesn't quite match the Russia will attack narrative.
"The elites and their fourth estate grind their teeth over the lousy peons’ refusal to volunteer to die for the banking cabal’s ancestral blood feuds essential freedoms."
YEP!!!
They hope to build up the Elon Musk robot army and take over the world (again).
That seems like a possibility.