It has been slowly becoming increasingly apparent that Ukraine may be utilizing the airspace of NATO countries for its recent spate of strikes against Russia.
you fail to take into account that what happens here is of zero consequence but that the criticism coming from Russia especially its military is real and growing.
though I do admire your ability to see into peoples mind's and know what they really think.
Agree with you. I’ve come now to the position that Russia needs to act or leave the kitchen. I for one can live in a world without Russia and have started feeling that it’s them who are contributing to the situation getting more dangerous for everyone.
At the end of the day the whole of mankind are facing the same problems and I don’t really believe that a world of competing power centres, not matter how many of them, are the solution.
The solution is ultimately spiritual and cultural. What’s the point of billions of Chinese and Russians all ultimately aspiring to the same shit we aspire to here in the west? The omelette might be of a different colour but it’s made of the same shit. There’s something to be said for peace, even if it’s just absence of open warfare. When nuclear war is being threatened, infrastructure essential for survival such as desalination plants, are put on the firing line, etc, I think we’ve all lost already, only that some people are paying with their lives.
The quickest way for this to end would be for ordinary people to fucking wake up from their self centred dream and I don’t see it happening. So, what is everyone fighting for? The main war (or as a Sufi would say, the jihad), the only one that matters is not being fought. We’re all slaves of our own self-deception, both in the west and everywhere. I’ve stopped caring whether the USA get away with this. Clearly there’s a huge karmic debt to pay that it’s practically impossible to wriggle out of. The universe operates despite our efforts.
I’m sick of all the violence. The other day I saw a video of a Russian on a road being hit by a drone with both legs dangling in pieces. What the fuck for?
At this point the Moon of Alabama is the last remaining stronghold of the true believers in Putin the Grandmaster lore. But it really comes down to a handful of fanatics.
Putin is a "grandmaster". I'd like to see YOU take over a collapsing state, and reverse course for the largest country on the planet.
But more pertinent to this discussion is that he is CAUTIOUS.
Perhaps too much, or perhaps not.
The strategic calculus is that the long-term is in Russia's/BRICS favour - indeed, this explains the never-ending panic and hysteria in Western capitals. Their actions are NOT the actions of calm confidence.
And to win in the long term requires that you survive into the long term.
In a way, Iran is fortunate not to have a nuclear arsenal. If there is an incoming nuclear tomahawk, they won't have to make the decision to retaliate and literally end the current era of the World.
For serious, ethical, moral people, that potential responsibility will weigh heavily.. a group that obviously doesn't include most Western leaders, as whoever you vote for, you get a Tony B'Liar.
Still, Putin's near total silence since the beginning of the Ramadan War, indicates there's some real fights going on behind the Kremlin doors.
What will be the the result of it, nobody knows.
And the West is so totally happy they have murdered - assassinated - all the moderates in the Western Asian Resistance, now getting hardliners instead. And they hail this as a "victory".
Little doubt if Putin was replaced by a hardliner, the corporate media would scream with joy about that too.
Western countries are now ruled by incompetent, CIA chosen, corporate middle managers who would sell out 'their people' in a heartbeat.
If they couldn't kill us all with "Vaccines", well, perhaps Russian WMDs would do the trick for them.
And President Putin knows all about that level of planning.
"Putin is a "grandmaster". I'd like to see YOU take over a collapsing state, and reverse course for the largest country on the planet."
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
We've all seen this movie before, a man builds a business, founds a country, restores order, a cat carves out a territory, he defends it, he performs genuinely heroic things - and then runs it all into the ground.
Maybe the times change, maybe he loses his touch, maybe the old nostrums no longer work, maybe new coalitions rise against him, maybe he no longer has the energy hew once did.
"We all know Russia COULD take action, but the question many are asking must be why it hasn't."
Remember: we have different players with different objectives.
1) Israel wants to get back to Ucraine (said openly by Abramovich in Istambul). Ucraine must therefore be depopulated first.
2) USA wants to repeat the economic wonder (happened after WW1/WW2) thanks to the reconstruction of Europe.
3) the élites in Europe want to control and enslave their population preserving their status.
4) Putin wants to protect the interests of its country.
The best way is therefore to let the above players to realize their objectives: applying a controlled demolition of Europe. That's the reason why Putin acts this way.
Note:
1) Europe is crumbling and as described by prof David Betz Europe will face inserructions. It's a matter of 1-2 years. Therefore Putin just have to wait.
2) In Anchorage Trump and Putin made a deal: I will attack Iran and you will have new opportunities on the market to sell oil at market price while Europe will face a planed economic collapse. The real target of Trump is not China but Europe.
The USA have a highly financialised economy on the verge of collapse. 21% of young people below the age of 25 are analphabet. Their image is ruined: most people around the world see theme as a bad cop, creating non-stop "terra bruciata".
Therefore wishing something (using your words: "playing for bigger stakes than Europe") remains nothing more than a wish. China and other countries are already years ahead in term of resilience, morality, meritocracy and potential for improvements.
"And I can’t see any evidence Putin is protecting Russia. Just the contrary."
Putin and its entourage remembers non-stop the list of laws Europe and USA are violating around the world. You cannot expect some "police-instance" inflicting a punishment on a super-power. Why? Because laws are frameworks with well defined limitations where they work or not. And between super-powers the "police-instance" never worked and will never work, because there's nothing above theme. The rules are clear. The world understands theme.
The punishment happens indirectly through the behavior of masses, deciding to avoid relationships of any kind with theme: the USA or Europe become therefore paria-entities. And this is the real punishment at super-power-level, that leads to the inevitabile collapse of those that infringe international laws.
By doing "nothing" Puting avoids the trap posed by provocations of Europe and the USA. The trap happens at the moment Russia starts reacting actively to provocations. I know it's not intuitive. But at super-power-level the horizon of actions is at least 30-50 years (more than a generation).
The masses in Europe/USA need first to collapse and feel pain inflicted by themselves through their behavior. This pain will finally initiate positive changes. And at that point everybody will be happy to restart relations with Russia, because Russia behaved allways correctly. That's the reason of Puting, acting as if he would do nothing (the same is valid for other players like China).
Under international law, allowing the use of one’s territory for attacks against another country is considered as an act of aggression (UN security council 3314 (1974)).
PS please avoid the “there is no longer any international law”mantra to dismiss this important question. Of course there is international law, even if certain countries have gone completely rogue. Consider the fact that there are serial killers does not make laws against homicide irrelevant or useless.
Here we go again "I do indeed think there is no such thing as international law"... Really? How is international aviation regulated? Guys chatting over the radio?
I would submit you have no clue about what international law is. Keep parroting the "there is no international law" mantra. Incidentally, international aviation law is founded on the 1944 Chicago Convention.
would be hard, one is Portuguese and the rest Spanish. This is a part of the world like the Old World where differences are lifelong and forever and always will divide.
When the time is right, and not before. I think the USAns that espouse the DO SOMETHING approach with zero historical context, zero consequences and even less than zero overall intelligence are driving certain narratives. They make no sense at all in practice, so why bother?>
At some levels, US military activity (and DEFINITELY our MSM reporting of that) are driven by what makes good TV/video for selling adjacent time slots to the advertisers?
So, military/"foreign policy by other means" actions which make for riveting video and can be all summed up in a short video clip between commercials are kind of what those of us who never learned much about history of warfare or ANYTHING about economics & don't like to read now expect- and EVERYTHING is a business model.
"How long can you supply weapons without repercussions?"
A long time, because selling weapons (or weapon parts), by itself, has not generally been enough justification to militarily attack the country supplying/selling the weapons or parts. USSR supplied North Vietnam with weapons for decades, but the US didn't escalate to WW3 over it. US supplied UK and USSR with huge amounts of weapons and equipment for a year and Germany didn't declare war on the US over that. Lots of historical examples.
Iran isn't attacking the manufacturers of the weapons being used against it, as many people are trying to argue here as some kind of "lesson for Russia to follow". That is all bullshit. And, Iran is not attacking countries whose only act is "allowing" the US and Israel to overfly their airpace when attacking Iran. No, Iran is not bombing Syria or Jordan or Iraq for that. If they do bomb something in Iraq or elsewhere, it is not a matter of airspace use, Iran is targeting facilities used directly by the aggressor countries, US and Israel.
If Iran targeted all suppliers of weaponry (weapon parts) that are used against them, they would have to target China too. US makers of weapons source materials from all over including, famously, rare earth elements from China. Nobody demands that Iran target China and call them an enemy for that. That would be stupid and childish.
Russia is smart to not emotionally escalate to another BIG step towards full-blown WW3 over dispersed weapons manufacturing and airspace use by countries who are not (yet) DIRECTLY engaged in launching attacks at Russia.
As expected, lots of commenters seem to want Russia to make unnecessary and emotionally charged, massive military escalations and directly attack Europe. Which, just coincidentally I am sure /s, is EXACTLY what all western media has said is Russia's "real goal" for the last 4+ years of non-stop propaganda. And they want the escalation right now!
indeed: growing, violent pro-war PR to mobilise Europe against Russia - same as it ever was: Russia Big Bad and territory-hungry. when will this end already.
Iran did attack economic assets of UAE, Kuweit and Qatar, and not only those that were American owned, while emphasing that Iran does not consider itself with Gulf Arab countries.
It does set a precedent for Russia though, which is why they published the specific addresses of the drone manufactures, warning that they could use same logic to do a strike limited to those addresses, without hitting anything else.
Iranian attacks on US bases didnt trigger NATO's article 5. Why? However it was the perfect case for it. Because unlike Russia, the US doesnt believe in the rule of law. I have this feeling that Putin is a man of the past. He doesnt understand the mechanics of the western empire, Its ambiguity, its treachery, its theatrical politics, its real rulers.
This USoA has only become the treacherous lying scoundrels they are when AIPAC and Zionism began buying off politicians with the power of their purse of which much of it comes in the form of US tax payer money they are never asked to pay back. The Zionists demand, our politicians jump to attention, and now they all lie, deceive, cheat, steal, and murder, the Zionist way.
The US did issue tertiary sanctions against countries cooperating with Russia so this is not quite correct. Fact is that this did not escalate to war. Another fact is that the US is taking part in a war by targeting data and attacks evaluation sometimes active as with attacks on Russian Black Sea fleet which could not be done without active participation for target allocation as the targets moved. The alleged help by the 3rd party by not reacting to drones or even facilitating their passage is another thing too although it is very difficult to prove anything. Closing air space along Estonian territory and shooting these things there may be a nice touch tho.
This show us how superior the west is as they have the escalation dominance Russia does not have.
By failing to retaliate and escalate, Russia's enemies are getting closer and closer. Soon, Russia is going to be nuked from Finland.
We must admit that the Western strategy of small step escalation, very simple strategy is successful. Russia cannot defeat Ukraine, not to mention the west. Nobody respects Russia any more, including the Russian urban class who defected from Russia.
As B. Berletic has shown, the aim of the west is to bleed and weaken Russia. This is their triumph. The west is more confident then ever, they are ready to execute genocides like the one in Gaza. Still, nobody ion the Global South rejects US culture, not to mention trade connections.
The human race got what it wanted. An endless fake, American Dream. This convergence, this point, that is the top achievement of the naked ape.
Leaders in the Wests are experts on smiling, sweet-talking, managing the press, putting up an indignant face and at the same time stab the knife into you.
They have played surprised, un-organized and even naive. Nothing of it is true.
This is the crux of the matter: the OE could lose its monopoly on "easy money" and that they will not accept without a fight. Could be the fight has well and truly begun.
Yes Cotra. Many here get asshurt when some plain truths are said,and it doesnt mean being anti-Putin. Despite Putins efforts to strenghten the country, he has been repeteadly fooled about the west true intentions for Russia. It is like he cannot understand why Russia cant join the western capitalist club. From the mid-2010s unsimetrically responded sanctions to the Minsk I and II unfulfilled agreements. A poorly prepared SMO and the loss of the nuclear deterrance, empty threats... The slowly grinding Ukraine didnt work either. 2-3 years to take Ugledar or Siversk, bogged down in Kupyansk, Lyman and Kharkov. The bridges on the Dnipr still working... Public offices in Kiev open... Starlink working unmolested.
Yes, there have been improvements in the drone warefare but not enough to have the upper hand. A major gigantic reform of the military production should be under way ASAP, starting by slashing the tank, and selfpropelled artilery production. Its like they prefer to keep those giant factories open for economic reasons instead of carrying out a radical transformation.
This is what AI says about the Russian tank production. Soaring and still not enough to cope with the casualties... There is something very wrong with that.
Russia has significantly ramped up its tank production, with the annual output of T-90M main battle tanks rising from approximately 90–110 units in 2020–2021 to an estimated 280–300 units in 2024. Open-source investigators from the Conflict Intelligence Team (CIT) report that the Uralvagonzavod plant in Nizhny Tagil has shifted to a 24-hour production cycle and is manufacturing tanks from scratch rather than relying solely on modernizing older models.
Current Output: By summer 2024, monthly tank production reached over 130 units, up from 40 in late 2022.
Total Production: Since the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022, Russia has produced at least 540–630 T-90M tanks, leaving an estimated 410–500 units in active service.
Future Goals: Internal documents indicate a plan to increase T-90 production by 80% by 2028, potentially reaching 428 tanks per year, alongside the resumption of T-80 and T-14 production lines.
Despite this surge, production remains insufficient to fully offset battlefield losses, which exceeded 1,000 tanks in 2024 alone. To meet long-term demands, Russia is expanding facilities with new welding stations and machining equipment, though further growth requires significant investment in modern machinery and overcoming sanctions on high-tech components.
Well, the West does what is in the best interest of the western elites. It can be protection, it can be bombing, it can be genocide or concentration camps. As long as the west can do what it want, unopposed, as long as the rest accepts and buys western culture, the west is superior.
They wouldn't have this problem if they established DETERANCE in Ukraine. Now all European leaders want to be Ukraine. By surviving, Ukraine is winning.
It's time for Russia to take the gloves off, if the Euros aren't willing to see common sense maybe they'll find some sanity in the smoking ruins of an oreshnik strike
It would be stupid for Russia to attack Europe now before defeating Ukraine first. Defeating one army first only leaves one remaining. Divide, attack one side, then conquer the other.
That would be the hardest target with Odessa close second. Regardless, if the numbers are just partially true, that is enough reason to alter course. Theoretically, Russia can lose this war if they allow NATO arm endlessly and to provide for Ukraine.
I am taking the idea more and more seriously since it became clear that Western Europe and the US has actually committed to a long-term rearmament program. At the same time this possibility is conditional on the Russian population developing a strong desire to become slaves and produce fossil fuels for the West for centuries (and handing over their kids for immoral purposes). Even if the general population gives up there I suspect somebody in the leadership will go drastic. I just cannot see them giving up, that would contradict their last thousand years of history.
What you are actually recognising (I think) is that it is time for a change because the West has found a cheap way to keep the war going - just keep producing inexpensive drones forever.
I just cannot see them giving up, that would contradict their last thousand years of history.
^^^this^^^
Historian Barbara Tuchman expands on this concept in her (to me) very depressing book, A Distant Mirror. When all the stupid continental wars and loss of life and futures are totaled...this is just more Europe doing what Europe does 'best' -More wars. Always and forever, more wars. The same old predictable Western Piracy dressed up as heroism and nobility. Again. And again. The sub-title...
This would require the Russian leadership to be infinitely more aggressive and decisive than they have been to date.
No-t to mention, the war has been popular because they average frustrated Russian has not been asked to sacrifice much. The leadership would have to now ask for something very different.
Your opinion is not held by many of the most informed period in the alt media sphere. It is however shared by all those who eat propaganda for breakfast and have their opinions feed to them by mainstream Western media. Why is that?
Maybe the people in the alt media sphere aren't as informed as you think, has it ever occurred to you?
Who has had a better track record in predicitng the course of events? That is all that matters.
Is it the people who back in mid-2022 were confidently telling you that Ukraine is finished and all that remains is the mopping up, and then for years kept telling you that Ukraine is going to collapse in the next few months?
Or is it the likes of Strelkov?
Speaking of Strelkov, who is better informed about things? Various Westerners or the guy who started the war back in 2014?
Yes, that is correct. If Russia has the hardware and develops the will to pull a Gaza on half of Kiev that would likely collapse the Ukraine opposition just by sending millions of refugees all over the country. I can hardly see Putin doing this.
Better leave Kiev stand alone - too many historical treasures.
Odessa is different.
Russia has enormous borders, and the zionized west is desperate to salvage the Mackinder plan - in vain.
The Vampire Squid could not help itself but bled Europe to death. The DisUnited states of A. are a colossus on the feet of clay. How patriotic is US senat? How advanced is US infrastructure?
Start levelling it slowly but surely- government entities, municipal utilities, roads and bridges. Bring it to acomplete stop and make leveryday life unbearable.
Depletion of NATO weaponry, cracks in NATO cohesiveness (and perhaps even a breakup), deterioration of EU economies, depletion of the Ukrainian army (weaponry, morale, fighting capacity, etc), and modernisation, buildup and reorganisation of the Russian military to better meet the needs of a future war with Europe and possibly the US.
What the hell does that mean? Are you doubting that Ukraine is more militarized? That nationalists were once seen as freaks and losers and now nationalism is the only acceptable ideology?
Now, without Europe's backing, which would then have no forces left for Ukraine, and the Ukrainian population would actively work against any aid... Without that, the Ukrainian army would quickly reach its end.
And it didn't need tanks to conquer Europe... The air force was sufficient for the time being... before tanks were needed in Berlin.
Why go to Berlin when EU leaders would go to Moscow to sign their surrenders? Iran has demonstrated that there is no need to travel to destroy forces. Imagine what Russia will do in a missile war.
Now, there are a lot of people wanting Russia to hit Europe without defeating Ukraine first.
Are you kidding me? I tell you what. Let Russia hit Europe now and find out how the war in Ukraine magnifies, and Zelensky gets the reinforcements he desperately wants. Then Russia has a bigger problem. Now it must fight a united enemy when it could have defeated Ukraine, and Europe would lose its appetite to cross into Ukraine. It's called deterrence. The longer this war goes the sillier things get. 😂
You start shooting conventional missiles at Europe, all you will achieve is the whole of Europe starting to launch drones and missiles at you with no restrictions. And the US wins by destroying both sides. Once again.
You win by taking that possibility away from them.
Europe is just an even bigger proxy that the Americans have very long ago planned to feed into the bonfire once Ukraine is spent. Which is the point we have reached now after four years of war. And precisely the reason for the content of the main post.
Elena, Re: the two named UK contributors. Apart from the premises in Leicester that makes the "Stickers" t'other is Mildenhall, which I presume is the one in Suffolk and is coincidentally home to a massive USAF base. Back in the Cold War days they stored Nukes there iirc. An Oreshnik attack there would not go down well in Washington, nor (more importantly imo) in the MSM, who would milk it for all it's worth. As for the other addresses, I haven't a clue but it would be interesting to know if they're similarly situated on Military asset sites.
"I just can’t casually consider nuking half a billion people"
I agree with what you are saying, but I respectfully point out the choice is not a binary choice or only a very limited set of choices. It's not a choice between no action, ineffective action, or nuking half a billion people.
You don't need to start the mass slaughter of city-killing like the UK started in Europe in WWII by deliberately carpet bombing civilians in cities, and which the US also started doing in Japan in WWII.
If people took the time to find the "on" switch for their study skills and they read up on what nukes actually are, the very wide range of them that exist, and how those nukes can be used, they'd see there is an extremely wide range of possible uses that do not involve killing half a billion people.
Nuclear strikes on the US/NATO nuclear weapons storage depots in the UK and in Europe could be done with very small nukes with sure-fire destruction of those sites and very little collateral killing of civilians in surrounding villages. Strikes could effectively demilitarize NATO with precision airbursts with very low yield. That would kill a couple of hundred thousand soldiers, but civilian deaths wouldn't be half a billion. They'd only be about a hundred thousand. That's the remarkable thing about high precision use of very small nukes: they are a first rate way of eliminating military targets with less collateral damage.
A conventional war in Europe would kill millions. Precision strikes with very small nukes could head off such a war with civilian casualties only in the hundred thousand range.
I'm not drawing a blueprint for such a war: I'm simply pointing out it's not just a binary choice between doing nothing and killing half a billion people. There is a huge and very complex territory in between those two extremes that covers all sorts of ground which deserves intelligent thought and serious analysis.
Russia might just have to wait out Trump. Hurts to say that.
I agree with you in that if you start using anything non-nuclear the EU will just not declare war and will tit-for-tat forever back to Russia. Why give them that leverage they have been begging for.
If you use a nuke, I could see Trump using one 10x as big to show the Russians he means it! This would give Trump a big distraction from Iran and at that point, when a nuke goes off so will the stock market so gives Trump another thing he can blame. It would also gift the EU some purpose and dare I say creditability to the EU's Van-der leadership.
Russia waited, so now they will have to eat this shit burger for at least two more years as punishment for not settling things sooner. If I were them, I would double down on air defence and drone production and give Iran stuff to bleed out some high end NATO assets. Maybe Russia will get lucky and parts of the west or NATO collapse before then.
If, in a couple years the next USA prez is looking like a Trump 2.0 and EU is getting more armed up then ever, I give my blessing for an all-out, coordinated (Rus-China-NK-Iran) First Strike to settle for the next 50yrs who will be top cop on this giant turd we call earth.
For myself having seen personal and medical accounts of the impact of the radiation on living creatures after Hiroshima in the aftermath as well as years later, I won't want to live on this planet if any nuke is used. It seems I'll want to take my own life at that point. I won't know unless/until we get there.
But I am clear there's no way in my universe I could ever consider that barbarous obscenity something I could benefit from in any way, much less feel like it'd be any kind of "victory" or development that could keep us or anyone "safer" in any way.
Btw GM if you've ever seen an exhibit such as the Hiroshima Panels, it'd be good context for your constant love letters to the bomb. Just to make sure you have some kind of an honest idea of the horrors (rotting flesh, etc) you're clamoring for.
We first had images of radiation sickness victims shown to us, and some quite realistic plastic dummies too, when he had civil defense classes, which was when were 11 or so.
And I happen to have learned much more about those subjects professionally since then.
So spare me the lecture
The reality of the situation is that either Russia exterminates everything between itself and the Atlantic and then moves its border to the Atlantic, with the new line of demarcation with the enemy running along the mid-Atlantic Ridge, or it will be destroyed in an interminable war with Europe, just as the enemy designed it.
That, of course, requires recognition of who the enemy is, both externally (the Anglo-Saxon-Zionist alliance centered in the US) and internally (Dmitriev, Peskovites, Putinism and oligarchs).
And I am yet to see anyone here offer anything more as an objection than emotional appeals to how bad nukes are.
Or do you believe in the virtues of the likes of Brin, Zuckerberg, Ellison and such?
Russians have their mentality that includes the concepts of fairness and mercy. These concepts are totally absent in the supremacist heads of owners of the collective west.
The dishonorable trash in the form of Hegseth, Kallas, Merz, Donny T & miller are the reflection of the ownership. They are set on burning the western civilization to the ground and to harm Humanity at large if this is necessary to preserve their trough.
"Nukes are strategically useless as their use guarantees certain destruction in return. How's that for a non emotional objection?"
Respectfully, your objection is highly emotional in that it ignores zillions of reasons why what you claim is not true. Let's use a simple thought experiment to illustrate that.
Suppose Israel uses a tactical nuke, say, a mere 5 kiloton airburst, to wipe out an Iranian above-ground atomic installation doing atomic research and uranium enrichment (some of Iran's legacy uranium enrichment is still above ground).
f you go online to any of the online nuclear weapons effects simulations sites and try a 5 kt airburst at optimal altitude over the Iranian atomic installation, you'll see there's very little collateral damage because such installations, like most secret / ultravaluable / military installations aren't located downtown in capital cities. They're out in the desert, and if you get just a small bit away from them an airburst that would totally waste the installation isn't going to knock down houses or cause mass fatalities in villages that are even a couple of kilometers, say a mile, away. But the use of that tactical nuke would still have massive strategic effect.
I trust nobody smart enough to be reading Simp's substack is so intensely stupid as to believe that such an Israeli use of a tactical nuke will "guarantee certain destruction" of Israel in return. There are other cases where Israel or the US could use nukes in Iran without suffering "certain destruction," for example use of a 1 kiloton nuke to wipe out Iranian shore batteries that are threatening to sink a wounded US Marine Corps troop ship.
OK, so now that we've established that there are plenty of plausible uses of nukes in war contrary to your absolute, no compromises claim that any use of a nuke guarantees certain destruction, the real question isn't whether that it does or doesn't, because everybody with an IQ over 40 knows it doesn't, but where the boundary lies between use guaranteeing certain destruction and not.
That's a much more complex question, but it's clearly far, far away from very many uses of nukes that would have strategic impact.
For example, if Russia gave the Baltics and Finland an ultimatum based on their acts of war against Russia to either surrender in one hour or face unlimited war, and then Russia proceeded to use very low yield airbursts (say, in the 1 kiloton range) to wipe out the toy militaries of the Baltics and Finland, perhaps using micronukes to eliminate their governments as well, would that "guarantee certain destruction?"
Hell no. There's no way the US would launch a mass attack on Russia, which would indeed result in a mass response from Russia that would kill nearly 300 million Americans, in response to Russia's highly limited use of a handful of tiny nukes to demilitarize Finland and the Baltics. Again, everybody with an IQ over 40 knows that the US is not going to volunteer to have New York incinerated just because Russia took care of business by flattening the Estonian base in Amari with a tiny nuke.
As to why nukes have never been used, the intelligent way to phrase that question is why they haven't been used *yet*. The answer is simple, that only recently has the common sense, sane approach to war between superpowers been destroyed. It used to be that the people who ran the Western nuclear powers knew it was really stupid to tangle with another nuclear superpower.
They had the experience and intelligence and sanity to channel conflict through proxy conflicts, like Vietnam. Only very recently has there been a mass replacement of more or less competent people in government in the West with highly ideological imbeciles. Personally, I think that's a typical result in empires that have become debased and corrupted. The Western Roman Empire at the end lost basic literacy. Leaders were warlords who were barely literate, a huge difference even from the rise of the Principate when Julius Caesar himself was actually a pretty good writer (along with being a remarkably lucky warlord).
As empires get fat and happy their people become cretins and then those cretins elect leaders in their own image. That pretty much describes the US and the intellectually and morally failed states of the EU. They have become so stupid that they don't reject military adventures that only end one way, with them getting incinerated.
"I won't want to live on this planet if any nuke is used"
Well, in that case you are well and truly screwed, because over 540 nukes have already been used, that is, exploded, in the open atmosphere, space, on or below the oceans, and in some truly epic cratering shots. You're living on a planet where hundreds of nukes, some of which were vastly larger than Hiroshima, have exploded in the open atmosphere.
In fact if you take just the top ten largest nuclear explosions ever, those range from 10 megatons to over 50 megatons, for a total combined "top ten" yield of about 214 megatons. The Little Boy device that exploded over Hiroshima had a yield of only 14 kilotons, so just the "top ten" explosions were the equivalent of about 15,300 (yep, that's *fifteen thousand three hundred*) Hiroshima explosions.
Yet, we're still here and that "we're still here" includes people who can't be bothered to learn the slightest bit about or apply the slightest common sense to discussions of nuclear weapons but who will babble nonsense about nukes at the drop of the hat, infecting pretty much every social media channel and discussion forum with wildly wrong opinions.
If you want to clutch your pearls or strike some sort of indignant pose about barbarous cruelty in war, there are even worse events involving conventional weapons in WWII than Hiroshima. More people died in the firebombing of Tokyo, where the US deliberately used incendiary bombs to ignite a firestorm. It's still an open question if more people (the weight of analytic opinion is leaning towards "probably yes") in the firebombing of Dresden.
For that matter, in the horrors of war department such as rotting flesh or children being burned alive, the entire fire bombing campaign the US ran against Japanese cities or the UK against German cities easily tops Hiroshima.
Finally, for those who want to discuss reality instead of turning their minds off like a faulty light switch the moment the topic includes anything nuclear, there is a vast difference between use of small yield tactical nukes and strategic city killers.
To take an obvious example, any of the nuclear powers could wipe out a US aircraft carrier at sea, completely amputating the US's ability to project force with that carrier, and there would be no collateral killing of civilians on shore. An airburst would sink the thing and pretty much ensure the deaths of anybody aboard with extremely little fallout, much less than the fallout already spread around the planet by the 540 nukes, many of them truly huge and dirty, that have already exploded.
Tactical nuclear strikes on Europe would do the world the favor of ridding civilization of a bunch of Nazi loving assholes in Nazi-loving centers like Berlin, Tallinn, Warsaw, and so on with very little collateral damage to the populations and economic infrastructure of Europe.
I grant that the UK and France would require more effort, since Russia would want to vaporize their ballistic subs (only one on patrol for each) to cut their nuclear deterrence nuts off, but hey, that's a matter of timing and a relatively simply matter to achieve by tailing them when they sortie with a Poseidon drone. For bonus points, detonate the thing (100 megaton yield, so they say...) near the exit from the Scottish fjord where the thing sorties from or near the French coast so there's enough of a mini- or micro-tsunami to make sure coastal populations get the message that it's a really bad idea to attack Russia.
Just saying, use of nukes is not an automatic kill switch for all life on Earth (or all life would have ended back in the 50's) nor is use of nukes in war an automatic step into total exchanges involving thousands of city killing weapons.
>In fact if you take just the top ten largest nuclear explosions ever, those range from 10 megatons to over 50 megatons, for a total combined "top ten" yield of about 214 megatons. The Little Boy device that exploded over Hiroshima had a yield of only 14 kilotons, so just the "top ten" explosions were the equivalent of about 15,300 (yep, that's *fifteen thousand three hundred*) Hiroshima explosions.
For some more context.
The Tunguska meteorite explosion had yield of around 10 Mt.
The Meteor Crater one was 10-20 Mt.
Such events happen once every few hundred years.
Smaller ones are much more frequent -- the 2013 Chelyabinsk meteorite had yield of around 500 Kt, and it exploded near a populated area.
Now these are single events, fairly spread out in time, and not that huge.
But then we have the hits on the other extreme of the scale. The Chicxulub one was 100 Tt. Teratones, not gigatones, and not megatons. Some 200 million times larger than Tsar Bomba. And on that scale the effects were indeed quite catastrophic. Fortunately these only happen on time scales of once a hundred million years.
Those numbers are highly relevant for placing nukes in context though -- all the nuclear warheads in existence today amount to less than 10 gigatons. So 10,000 times less than Chicxculub.
Now how frequently do impactors of size comparable to 5-10 Gt explosion yields strike Earth? Once every 100,000 to 200,000 years. And they obviously have practically no effects on the planet.
It's pretty profound how much impact Iran's 'weapons free' strategy has had, even in the short term - it is objective proof of the efficacy of 'escalate to de-escalate' and has US on their heels.
Elena is right though - the pernicious tendency to assign US policy to the come and go characters is an ongoing deficiency in so many peoples analysis - US foreign policy is an undeviating vector unto itself.
Wicked debate here - as fascinating as it is horrifying. Thanks?
It all comes down to the US. If striking Europe brings the US in it is deeply counterproductive. However European militaries are a joke in this kind of warfare. Tiny force structures and even smaller weapon stock piles. Incredibly anaemic support from the population. Once the body bags start coming back it won’t take long before Europe fractures and gives up.
Yes if its population was behind it. They are not however, and the politicians are too corrupt to turn the MIC from a profit producing industry to a weapon producing industry. Europe is no different just on a micro scale. Ukraine has the best land force of any European country which has been shown in various recent NATO exercises.
"Ukraine has the best land force of any European country"
Respectfully disagree. The Kiev regime has an exhausted land force with horrific demographics that is hanging on by a thread, alive only because Russia is prosecuting the conflict in an extremely limited way, Russia's intent being to minimize Russian losses while enabling the Russian economy to grow in a Russia that is almost entirely unaffected by war.
A war between Russia and the US's EU stooges would be a very different thing and it would immediately result in the wrath of real war, and not the current highly limited conflict. Russian strikes into marshalling and supply centers in the EU countries that are propping up the Nazi regime in Kiev would wipe out what's left of the Kiev regime's army.
The real "Ukrainian" army that is the best land force of any European country is the army of (former) Ukrainians in the four new territories plus Crimea.
Compared to Russia, Ukraine is inferior and will eventually lose. Compared to the UK, France or Germany, assuming Ukraine was fighting on home soil they would send them home in a few months. This is simply because they have a much larger pool of trained manpower familiar with the reality of modern warfare than any Western European country. Hence, I don’t think Russia should be intimidated by any of these countries unless they have the backing of the US. Nothing would end British, French or German involvement in Ukraine faster than a brigade of their army (I very much doubt they could support anything larger) getting chewed up on the steppe. If the US is sufficiently distracted elsewhere, Russia should adopt a carrot and stick approach with Europe (ie recent Spanish gas deal) making cheap energy available to those who withdraw support for Ukraine, but being more belligerent with those who don’t (ie sinking naval vessels which attempt to illegally seize Russian tankers in international waters)
Hhhmm. I understand your point. However, I can't see an "united enemy" entering Ukraine in order to confront Russia. It's been discussed long and far how small the armies of the main European powers are in terms of available fighting men and materials since a lot ,if not most, of those materials have already disappeared in the black hole of Ukraine. Furthermore, I can see no appetite among European men, or what's left of a masculine menhood there, which is not much and only to be found in the older generation (35 + I'd say) to go to any war, let alone face the Russians in their own backyard.
So yeah nah ,in my humble view that is not a worry for them. Different story if the yanks were to join tho.
In the article there are some assumptions that keep misleading us about the bigger picture, like the claimed US threats to leave their bases in Europe. Oh, please do, since Europe is an American occupied territory since 1945. There is not a chance for this happening. The Ukraine war is an American war. Like for Iran, it follows to the letter the Rand Corporation's papers against Iran, Russia and China. The US keep arming and financing the fascists as there is no tomorrow.
The Russians know very well that the whole NATO machine is backing the Ukranian proxy shell and increasingly so. The Russian advances in the last year are pacing down, are poor and disappointing. The whole German and Polish industries and economies are fully implicated in the Kiev regime surviving, not to mention the Baltics .
Why do the Russians make it public now? Because of the Iranian destruction of 20 American bases in the gulf and the near obliterarion of the zionist entity. The Russian people start to make unconfortable questions about Putin's strategy. His image is compromised. Russia has lost its deterrance allowing NATO to bomb them on a daily basis and even destroy critical facilities, nuclear triad sites and even targetting the head of state life. I can understand this could be seen as provocations in order to trigger an allout Russian response which would guarantee the so desired American intervention in Europe. But lets face it. The American intervention in Europe was never im question..They are fully involved in Ukraine. A destruction of Europe would be very much in their interest. From commercial competitors Europe would become extraction colonies. And last but not least, Russia has kept selling oil and gas to Europe all these years. The Russian threats are no longer credible. Their massive missile strikes on Ukraine cannot break Ukraine because the Ukraine is already an empty shell, buy their strategic rear is and will be untouched by Russia.
Concerning the tankers war ships scorts, it was the only response to an act of war. Russia was progrssively being strangled by sea. But the empire will only double down. The end is not at sight
<<<<<The Russian advances in the last year are pacing down, are poor and disappointing.<<<<<
Clearly you are unfamiliar with the geography of the region in general and especially the nature of winter there. Every winter, the western media claim the Russians are stalemated even though they are always steadily advancing. Non stop questions about why Russia doesn't just launch massive charges against defensive lines like they do in Hollywood movies.
Were I Leading Russia … Wars have phases. European weapons have largely been consumed in Ukraine. So now we enter the next phase against NATO. To date, Putin has largely ruled out covert action on legal/ quasi-moral grounds. This may be the biggest rethink required.
Europe’s top vulnerability is the hatred of its native populations for their fake democracies. Russia has the option to weaponize that, and also target key facilitators and the people behind its propped up “leadership” class. That class has no choice but war, as its finances are doomed without new plunder. Every day should make its very existence harder, as the central crux of Russia’s war.
Working inside Europe’s foreign janissary “refugee” communities at the same time would frustrate future weaponization attempts against Russia, while creating very interesting lose-lose dilemmas for Europe’s Quisling class.
If Europe must be hit with strikes, its energy infrastructure is a far better target than drone factories, and symmetric. LNG terminals are top of that escalation ladder.
The USA’s vulnerabilities are its own proxy wars, and Israel. I have little doubt that some Iranian strikes have Russian targeting help, a mirror of Ukraine.
The twist here is that Russia wants good relations with the GCC arabs.
It’s also thinking about keeping US involvement limited rather than collapsing its regime - which, in a mirror of Iran-US, is superficially tempting but not realistic.
Ruling out the removal of people like Sen Graham and other warmongering neocons might be worth a rethink, though.
I'd start with the RADA complex in Kiev and move on from there. Let them know your going to destroy it so they can get the people out then levell it. Destroy all bridges over the Dneipro and see how they react.
As long as Russia is run by a spineless western loving idiot, there's no chance of a fight. His constant love for Alaska nonsense is evident by now, despite recent sanctions from the US side, Russians are still harping for peace talks nonsense. Kiril Dimitrovs constant sucking upto Trump is pathetic at this time.
Actually, they were not sure what would happen, especially economy wise, but they had to preempt assault on DLPR.
But, why would he antagonize West if he loves West?
"The best" explanation offered here was that commies would win in Russia, if he hadn't done anything. Here you have it, he went in in order to prevent commies from winning.
That best explanation is highly credulous. Communist party support in Russia has never exceeded 20% since 2000 and in the last presidential election was under 5%. They currently hold just 57 of 450 seats in parliament.
Thought I should make that clear in case anyone took you seriously.
We can call it a miscalculation in hindsight but not obvious; as an opening gambit it almost succeeded and Ukraine, left to their own devices, would have capitulated.
You are correct concerning Johnson’s role. On the other hand whenever Russia shows up with 20,000 tanks and asks for diplomatic exchanges people get slightly worried. The talking went on and on before the march, I think Zelensky wanted that war as well. He received years of assurances and support by then.
‘Well, if Kiev had complied with Minsk 1 and/or Minsk 2, the Russians would not have felt the need to show up.’
Absolutely correct. This was a conflict built systematically by the US side for decades. When Zelensky showed up as ‘the servant of the people’ I knew things were going the very wrong way. I will never be able to comprehend how Ukrainians fell for this blood and money hungry little bastard. I did not read the books you mentioned but I did develop a full image of prior events after the war started.
To save his own skin, and to save his Western masters' skin too.
The prospect was for millions of Russians to be streaming into Voronezh and Rostov as refugees from the Banderite bashibozuk, with hundreds of thousands who would not have been able to flee slaughtered.
And for the Ukro-NATO-Nazi army to quite possibly not stop at the border, but to continue further and seize Taganrog, Rostov and who knows what else.
That would have been the end of Putin because no Russian leader who allows such a catastrophe to unfold while sitting on his hands the same way he had been sitting on his hands for the previous two decades could survive.
It may well have been the end of the oligarchic post-Perestroika model too, because that would have been immediately questioned as a primary reason for the catastrophe.
Putin preempted them so that he could stay in power and preserve the existing order. But real victory was never part of his agenda.
And also, as I said in the beginning, he did to save his Western masters.
Because the next thing that happens after such a catastrophe unfolds is that someone who is not Putin takes power in the Kremlin and physically erases Europe from existence and does what Stalin was not able to because the Americans were so far ahead with their nuclear program.
In retrospect it would have been better for Russia if it had gotten the June 22 treatment again and it had been forced to react to that.
Millions were streaming from 2014 to 2022 and after the SMO started. Invalid.
Yes, Ukies dream of Greater Ukraine, just like any self-respecting ultra-nationalist dreams of "Greater whatever", but historically they are just murderous losers. incapable of achieving any statehood on their own. Now they will implode a state, that they were unbelievably lucky to get after the collapse of the USSR.
Stalin, in your own words, destroyed USSR in the long run by taking unbelievable demographic toll, which is what Russia is not taking now. With other words, Putin achieving what Stalin achieved would be a disaster for Russia, long term.
And I will repeat again, like a broken record, Stalin left neo-Banderite problem for Putin to sort out now.
Leaving aside all of the differences between total war and SMO aside.
>Millions were streaming from 2014 to 2022 and after the SMO started. Invalid.
Not at once.
>Stalin, in your own words, destroyed USSR in the long run by taking unbelievable demographic toll, which is what Russia is not taking now.
No, that is not in my own words. The USSR was destroyed by the Anglos and the Americans successfully pitting the German rabid dog against the USSR. Stalin saved the USSR by preparing for it to the extent he could, at an enormous cost. But it was ultimately not enough.
>Stalin left neo-Banderite problem for Putin to sort out now.
Stalin should have killed them all, that is correct. The Baltics too. Huge mistake. I guess he was too broken at that point by the strategic loss that was the war to carry out such measures. Also, the Americans had nukes, he didn't. That severely limited his freedom of action.
But it wasn't Stalin who let them out of the GULAGs, Khrushchev did that. And it most definitely wasn't Stalin who allowed them in the party to undermine it from within
Why put them in Gulags to start with? Kaja Kallas whines about her grandmothers family ending up in Gulags, yet somehow she exists.
Stalin did not assassinate Bandera, Khrushchev did.
Demographic toll undermined USSR in the long run.
But anyway, wars are incomparable.
Putin had to prepare Russia economically, because that was the main planned hit. People work on the issues reality presents to them. We still might end up in a total war. Even then it would be incomparable, economically, technologically, militarily, etc.
It would just be total war, with much greater destructive capabilities we have today.
We don't disagree. He should have killed them all, and he should have also redrawn the borders, i.e. the post-war Ukraine is the territory west of the Zhytomyr-Vinnytsia line, Kiev, Odessa and everything east of them becomes part of the RSFSR.
But he had to keep a lot of people happy internally and this would have been a hard sell.
Also, if he were to kill 3-4 million people in the 1946-1959 period, that may well have given the Americans an excuse to launch nuclear strikes. You can't understand Stalin's very constrained behavior in the 1945-1950 period without invoking the nuclear factor. It's why Greece was lost (which was one of the long-term fatal blows) and why the Americans were allowed to establish themselves in Korea and Japan (another long-term fatal strategic defeat). There were catastrophic second-order effects too -- Stalin's inaction in Greece pissed Tito off, and the effects on the Chinese regarding Korea were similar.
>Putin had to prepare Russia economically, because that was the main planned hit.
Kaia Kallas great grandpa was a chief of the Soviet Estonian police. Her daddy was a prominent Soviet apparatchik. The whole family is an example of power-greedy opportunism
To be technically correct, it was Khrushchev who allowed the Banderites to return from Siberia in 1953.
I find it "interesting" that no one else mentions the fact that it was the OSS that organized this resistance group and encouraged them to attack Soviet troops before WWII ended.
And of course, the most obvious point that they have presence in Canada and New York state.
Like all this is "Putin's fault". Give me a break. You guys gotta get into Aaron Good. You're really missing out. You've settled yourselves into two camps that just jaw one another over and over and over again with the same limp-dick excuses and fantastical claims while totally ignoring what's really going on.
Like yours you mean? 🤔 By now, it's perfectly clear what the story has been all along. No? Now Ukraine is being royally shafted by their mates and Russia is taking a very long view on the whole affair, much to the annoyance of those that would like to see some carpet bombing and big headlines...
Because war is full of unintended consequences and the US (along with it's hangers on) can be very dangerous. They present a problem that cannot be ignored. Unfortunately. The SMO is a skilled compromise to an all out war (at least I think so).
His "sucking up" to Trump is an effective way to keep Trump from making stupid decisions as pertains Russia - it's how you deal with an insane narcissist.
Zero. That's the chances of Russia doing anything. In fact zero is too big a number. They allowed themselves to be boiled so many times already that it doesnt even matter anymore.
Yes, russia is fighting the whole of europe essentially but they limited themselves to the territory of ukraine. And the slow motion war means that even europe had enough time to scale up manufacturing and production. Reestablishing deterrence is impossible, its 2 years too late
Europe's impending oil shortage will severely limit its industrial ability to produce drones. The U.S. has bitten off more than it can chew in Iran. This is the opportune time for Russia to strike back against the EU. We shall see what happens.
Sorry, but Trump clearly said the U.S. has plenty of oil to sell to everybody. Are you saying you don't trust the Commander in Chief of the greatest country on Earth?
Nobody in the world has "taken off the gloves". Nobody seems willing to. Few dare to raise their voices.
Russia is stuck. Iran and its immediate allies are stuck. China watches as the Western consortium prepares their cage next. Everyone waits for Cuba to be under siege.
Anyone standing up now is too little and has acted too late.
To be free from The Matrix is liberating, but look around. History must record the incredibly limited and reluctant interest in confrontation.
Lots of people have been warning that the longer the Kiev Regime is allowed to hang around the greater the chances are for desperate, impromptu strategies to emerge from Ukraine and the West. Enough slow walking attrition strategies... just end this damn thing with bold lightening strikes.
" just end this damn thing with bold lightening strikes"
We are seeing two very different approaches in the real world. Russia has been doing a slow grind in the Ukraine for 4 years -- and still the war goes on. The US and Israel had an extremely successful lightning strike in Iran, cut off the head of the snake -- and still the war goes on.
As an economist once said, "There is a lot of ruin in a nation". The idea that "lightning strikes" could bring the war in the Ukraine to a quick end is not supported by any real world history. In WWII, the Germans blitzed London ... and the war went on. The English killed over a hundred thousand civilians with their fire bombing raid on Dresden ... and still the war went on. The US took the hint and firebombed Tokyo causing immense destruction ... and still the war went on.
To end the war in the Ukraine, Euro citizens would have to stage massive demonstrations & strikes against their own governments to force a change of leadership who will cut off support for Zelensky. Not going to happen. Euro citizens are cattle.
I'm no military genius but it's not hard to envision a decisive attack, simultaneously on many levels; however, this may require upgrading from SMO to the status of a Declared War.
I'm sure the Russian military command has an all out victory plan ready to implement. Furthermore, The Correlation of Forces calculation and military cultures are very different in Ukraine than in Iran. The key point is clear: Time is no longer on the side of Russia.
Ukraine claims it has already introduced combat robots on the battlefield. Lots of western firms will voluntarily supply these assets in a real war for testing. Russia still hasn't figured out drone EW... God knows what happens when robots enter the battlefield.
Europe is also regrouping and pumping in more resources than ever into the Ukrainian state. Germany is planning for near term war on Russia. It would be a huge advantage to them if NATO forces could be deployed at the banks of the Dnieper instead of the Polish border.
But you don't have to be a genius to identify a devastating strategy that's doable... the slow walk option is failing. Ukraine may be at its weakest point right now.
US/NATO is still pumping enough arms and dollars into Ukraine to keep it from collapsing (barely), and you are running out of patience. So, to ease your irritation, Russia should ignite the current World War 3 (a hybrid war in which we have all been living since the 2014 Maidan Coup, approximately) and bring the human world to a thrilling, blazing, thermonuclear conclusion.
Or, you could take a warm shower and go for a walk in fresh air. Maybe that will clear your head, at least until tomorrow. If not, go back to bed and put a pillow over your head.
Wrong. Now is the time to play long-ball when Ukraine is at its weakest.
That won't last long. US/NATO is forcing Ukrainian men in the EU back to the front lines. In 2027 the AFU will have a new 300K man army... and another 90 Billion euro to work with.
Right now Russia can't cope with Ukrainian air drones. What happens when Kiev introduces 4-legged robots with mounted heavy fire guns and mortars?
But hey... keep slow walking while NATO and the Ukrainian proxies keep attacking Russian military and oil assets on land and sea, mounting a new army and introducing an AI/ robotic battlefield.
Sorry Duane ... only someone pretty oblivious to recent developments could be so smug and snotty. Let me give you some clues that demonstrate WWIII has already broken out: 1) Russian warships now accompany merchant vessels to prevent hijackings by Western powers; 2) Russian passage on the Black Sea is now a perilous journey; 3) Russia is warning Baltic (ie NATO) States that they face retaliation for allowing Ukie missiles to transit their territory on the way to Russian targets.
And as mentioned earlier, the NATO states are forcing repatriation of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men to fight on the front lines; while new technology is entering the battlefield all the time.
Poland and Baltic States keep a very close eye on their Russian border areas. The only way Ukraine can pull these tricks is by the close cooperation, tolerance of these four states. It is difficult for them to step away from the responsibility and claim plausible deniability. When these border areas become warzones Russia has every right to attack the drones regardless they are on the other side of the border or not. At the same time there is little question that this is exactly the reaction Zelensky and the Baltics are seeking. They can assure their own security only by dragging into the war Germany and other states. The German military is already into the Baltics here and there.
Yes, cause the victims among the people is a risk their leaders are willing to take while they and their family reside somewhere safe. A decapitative strike would be the right way to move forward. They started and pushed, let’s not punish the ‘innocent’
The small Baltic States worked their way gradually deper and deeper into this hole where they just have to beat Russia regardless what it takes in order to survive. NATO or no NATO the endgame points toward the possibility of the Baltics losing their independence again. If that happens I will feel sorry for them but that is not going to help them.
Why feel sorry. I think Russia is doing quite well, better than many if not all European nations. Expensive societies, high living standard, resource poor, de-industrialization, immigration issues. Their leaders may see the only way out: war
Sorry will not be extended to Kallas and Gang. I already wrote some years ago that those crazy chicks need to be chained to the walls of their own kitchens.
Chances are that I actually love women far more than you do:)) As far as Kallas, I truly believe that she is deeply corrupted and lacks moral guidance.
A HS friend of mine married an Estonian woman about 4+ decades ago. Reflecting on the few unfortunate conversations I've had with her over the years, I still look back with awe at the white-hot hatred she had for the Russians. I've never heard a 1950-era Alabama peckerwood launch bile against their black neighbors on a similar scale. Just off the charts...
The Baltic states and Poland all had similar experiences with the Russian/Soviet occupations and it was long and extremely unpleasant. It was actually even worse, a real existential threat to them they are still trying recover from. For them the brutality of the 20th and earlier centuries is still a part of reality they cannot walk away from. If you travel around in Europe, ex-East German, Polish, Hungarian territories ask them and you get the same stuff.
For four years, we've been hearing how Russia is going to really take off the gloves for real this time, Putin said that this latest sucker-punch really wasn't fair. Medvedev mumbled something stern, a strongly-worded email perhaps, just you wait and see! FAFO!
The US is quickly depleting its AD and stand-off weapons system against Iran. Production rates are ridiculously slow. Aircraft carriers have been shown to be obsolete. There are the two articles about the problems the F35 has, so much so that the Marines have cancelled the VTOL version and are buying carrier versions., and the one about "not enough tankers".
It isn't like the EU is going to have a viable force anytime soon.
China and Taiwan are making kissy faces at one another because Taiwan is being starved of energy.
There's probably a lot of Sun Tzu going on.
Resources are probably being prioritized to Iran. While we all "know" that the US is going to violate the cease fire with a surprise attack, it isn't like Iran isn't ready for it. 13 US bases have been destroyed in West Asia. The Marines on the Tripoli are being fed spoonfuls of mystery meat.
Americans are turning against Israel. Russia/China/Iran see "regime change" in America as a possibility. Why interrupt it?
In the meantime, Ukrainians are dying. Who's to say which side is being honest with their causality figures?
I am willing to consider that Russia may not want to advance because why not stay where everything has already been destroyed. No reason to destroy another building that will have to be replaced.
Then there's guessing at what the US end-game is. With energy cut off from the Gulf, Johnson is predicting the bottom 25% who live in Italy will be starving by September. Starvation may be very much wide spread around the world.
"Everyone" is predicting super inflation in the US and the dollar losing "everything".
Why risk Russian resources advancing on Europe now?
Think about it. The US entered the War in 1941 but didn't invade France until 1944. They did it to fuck over the Russians, of course. I don't think Russia and China are trying to fuck over Iran. Iran is handling the US. The GCC states are on the verge of self-destruction. Iraq and Turkey are both pissed at Israel.
How much longer can al Sisi keep his generals under control before one of the Captains pulls a Burkina Faso Traore?
You keep being impatient because.... you're just impatient.
I won't bring up the strategy the US is planning around the Malacca strait. There are more than enough critics.
I should mention though that the US is bleeding Europe white.
You gotta offer us something more strategic other than "it makes Russia look weak." LOL! Russia don't care.
I do agree on the decapitative strikes on the heads of the four "cur" states that are Ukraine's rear. The USA does it, so why not Russia. The citizens of those countries might even send Putin a thank you note for ridding them of their lice.
Of course, a decapitation strike on Lithuania would need to be aimed at addresses in Washington, London, and Brussels. Nauseda and his boys are just faces.
>Yes, cause the victims among the people is a risk their leaders are willing to take while they and their family reside somewhere safe.
That doesn't really describe the Baltics.
A primary reason the Baltics still exist is that during WWII they were fairly evenly split, i.e. the interwar governments had been outright Nazis, and half the population was that too, but there were also a lot of sincere communists who fought to the death against the Nazis. They had also played a major role in the Russian Civil War on the side of the Red Army. So the Germans are cleared from the Baltics, and Stalin cannot just kill everyone or pack them into ships and launch them towards Germany, because he has hundreds of thousands of Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian true communists in his own ranks who would object quite forcefully if he was to do that.
But today there is no such split, the majority of the population is fully brainwashed into being unrepentant Nazis. And this is no longer a bad elites/good people situation.
Well, Russia needs to take care of Ukraine first and defeat it before any thought of starting a greater war, as I've been saying for years.
In the words of Dmitri Medvedev,"Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia's Security Council, has consistently articulated that Russia's core war aim is to inflict a "maximum defeat" on Ukraine, rejecting any peace that does not involve its total capitulation.
His vision for a "peace" settlement, often presented with sardonic language, demands the complete dismantling of the Ukrainian state, which he refers to as a "former" country. This includes:
Unconditional surrender and recognition of military defeat by Ukraine.
Demilitarization of Ukraine and the dissolution of its government and armed forces.
International recognition of Ukraine's loss of sovereignty, with a ban on any future state joining military alliances without Russia's consent.
Formal annexation of all Ukrainian territory into the Russian Federation, which he frames as a "reunification."
Medvedev has stated that even if a formal agreement is signed, Russia would eventually return to "crush" any remaining opposition, viewing the current conflict as a civilizational war to permanently eliminate Ukraine as an independent entity. He has dismissed Western peace initiatives and sanctions, claiming Europe has failed to defeat Russia while damaging itself economically."
And according to Strelkov,"when it comes to the SMO that people like Strelkov insist quite correctly that only the end of Ukrainian Statehood will suffice, anything less just kicks the can down the road.
Currently, Russia is in no position to broaden its front. It's of no use to threaten Europe when Russian forces are still caught in a WW1 positional trench attrition warfare and going nowhere, while Europe prepares for war with it. All common sense dictates that Ukraine must be defeated, as Medvedev and Strelkov point out. It's also what I've been saying all along. I doubt Europe would attack a Russian-controlled Ukraine. So there's that to consider too.
The quotes are from Medvedev and Strelkov's opinions on what Russia should do in Ukraine, simply meaning that only its surrender is satisfactory to eliminate Ukraine as a future threat. That's it in a nutshell, Tony.
Thanks, but the quote begins, " Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia's Security Council, has consistently articulated.......". Tthat sounds to me like someone else's opinion of Medvedev's words. I follow what the Russians say and I do not recognise such maximalist terms. Perhaps they are Medvedev's personal opinion but are surely not state policy, else one can only conclude that it is Russia that has been duplicitous about negotiating and, IMO, it makes a complete nonsense of the way they have conducted the SMO.
Europe is just another captured Ukraine waiting to happen. Russia has been building up for them and dragging out the Ukraine war to bleed them out. Russia knows Europe is to be used as a battering ram against them and Europe is preparing itself for that mission. Do you think Russia is going to sit back and let Europe strike first when they feel they are ready?
so depressing - the whole ME is on fire again tonight with something weird going on in Saudi Arabia. Also there's a rumour going around that Carney is Liquidating Canada so it can join the US - although Carney has given Trump the brush off in front of the Cameras and Von Der Lyin' has said that the EU would welcome Canada into the Union. Whoever is running the enemies of Russia are very sneaky and long-sighted. So What should Russia do ? Protect Iran and ignore the poodles.
Russia is stronger than we think, but you need an aggressive leadership like Medvedev. I still think Putin is a great peacetime leader, but he's not cut out for wartime leadership. Russia completely messed up its SMO from the very beginning by attacking in parade formation without weakening AFU defensive positions sufficiently to warrant attacking. This is all elementary stuff.
I hope Russia is stronger than we think. The world needs a stronger Russia. I hope the Russian General staff can do all this "elementary" stuff as you call it. We are all heartily sick of Zelensky and this entire Ukrainian mess.
Please Mr. Medvedev and Please President Putin, please make this stop
I tend to disagree. Wars have changed drastically in a way that was not foreseen. Look at the USA with it’s multi million dollar equipment, trying to fight 30.000 dollar drones. Look at the front where thousands of drones are in the air 24x7. You and I would not survive 15 minutes. It’s also impossible to level the country (the USA tried that in Vietnam, Israel did it in Gaza, but that is very small). In hindsight it all seems easy, but for instance in the beginning, the USA was fully on board. Going in big at that moment would have lead to a big reaction of NATO. Cause, Russia knows, you know, people commenting here now: we are dealing with psychopaths, we are dealing with the elite class. They really don’t give a fuck when millions die or when countries get destroyed (war is a racket remember, cause rebuilding also creates money plus debt).
Note: the difference between someone like Stalin and them: they have made the plebs believe they care. But they killed more people than Stalin did and of late I am more and more convinced that the USA financed both wars, so who is also responsible for the 60 million deaths in WW2? Who made massive profits from these wars?
Canadian forces attacked Juno beach, which had more firepower against it per square feet of attack than any of this drone stuff can deliver on an extended front in Ukraine. (now there's anti-drone technology at play)
By storming the beach, advancing non stop, Canadian Forces were the first to break the German lines by 3 km within a few hours. You don't remain static. You charge and overwhelm enemy forces and put them on the retreat and disorganized. You take big loses initially, but overall a whole lot less than just standing around as the Americans did. All I hear is excuses why Russia doesn't attack with a good plan of course. Hell, the Russians were masters of forward attacks at one time.
Big initial losses, Marl. but at less of an expense than if you moved slowly. How to win with minimal losses? Attack with speed,overun enemy positions, kill them while they're on the run. It's war, man, not Woodstock lovefest. lol All wars are bankers' wars, but that's another story, friend.
from the armchair quarterback who has no repsonsibility to anybody and thinks he knows better than Putin and his staff what needs to be done - or CAN be done
Listen, tweedledumb: I've been commenting on this war here since it started, and you're just a newbie with nothing relevant to say. So stay in your lane, huh?
Russia is the strongest country in military-technical terms.
But is extremely weak politically.
Remember that the USSR had reached the point where it was slightly stronger than the Americans, and that is exactly when it collapsed due to internal treason.
Modern Russia is a much diminished rump state of the USSR, with none of the traitors from back then punished for it.
Well im sure glad we deal with all our corruption so thoroughly and completely. Its almost as if there isnt actually an overlord class of Uber rich dictating everything, and milking us like aphids.
Im so glad its so much worse over there so we can forget about our own cesspool of corruption and disgusting elites that should be brought to justice for their disgusting problems.
After Iran depleted American standoff munitions, and proved their domestic systems can target and destroy jassm, airframes and tomahawk, the Russians should understand there is nothing to fear from Article 5 - except that Russians have a standard of living they do not want degraded.
If ever there was a time to sieze the strategic initiative, it is now.
you fail to take into account that what happens here is of zero consequence but that the criticism coming from Russia especially its military is real and growing.
though I do admire your ability to see into peoples mind's and know what they really think.
Agree with you. I’ve come now to the position that Russia needs to act or leave the kitchen. I for one can live in a world without Russia and have started feeling that it’s them who are contributing to the situation getting more dangerous for everyone.
At the end of the day the whole of mankind are facing the same problems and I don’t really believe that a world of competing power centres, not matter how many of them, are the solution.
The solution is ultimately spiritual and cultural. What’s the point of billions of Chinese and Russians all ultimately aspiring to the same shit we aspire to here in the west? The omelette might be of a different colour but it’s made of the same shit. There’s something to be said for peace, even if it’s just absence of open warfare. When nuclear war is being threatened, infrastructure essential for survival such as desalination plants, are put on the firing line, etc, I think we’ve all lost already, only that some people are paying with their lives.
The quickest way for this to end would be for ordinary people to fucking wake up from their self centred dream and I don’t see it happening. So, what is everyone fighting for? The main war (or as a Sufi would say, the jihad), the only one that matters is not being fought. We’re all slaves of our own self-deception, both in the west and everywhere. I’ve stopped caring whether the USA get away with this. Clearly there’s a huge karmic debt to pay that it’s practically impossible to wriggle out of. The universe operates despite our efforts.
I’m sick of all the violence. The other day I saw a video of a Russian on a road being hit by a drone with both legs dangling in pieces. What the fuck for?
At this point the Moon of Alabama is the last remaining stronghold of the true believers in Putin the Grandmaster lore. But it really comes down to a handful of fanatics.
Putin is a "grandmaster". I'd like to see YOU take over a collapsing state, and reverse course for the largest country on the planet.
But more pertinent to this discussion is that he is CAUTIOUS.
Perhaps too much, or perhaps not.
The strategic calculus is that the long-term is in Russia's/BRICS favour - indeed, this explains the never-ending panic and hysteria in Western capitals. Their actions are NOT the actions of calm confidence.
And to win in the long term requires that you survive into the long term.
In a way, Iran is fortunate not to have a nuclear arsenal. If there is an incoming nuclear tomahawk, they won't have to make the decision to retaliate and literally end the current era of the World.
For serious, ethical, moral people, that potential responsibility will weigh heavily.. a group that obviously doesn't include most Western leaders, as whoever you vote for, you get a Tony B'Liar.
Still, Putin's near total silence since the beginning of the Ramadan War, indicates there's some real fights going on behind the Kremlin doors.
What will be the the result of it, nobody knows.
And the West is so totally happy they have murdered - assassinated - all the moderates in the Western Asian Resistance, now getting hardliners instead. And they hail this as a "victory".
Little doubt if Putin was replaced by a hardliner, the corporate media would scream with joy about that too.
Western countries are now ruled by incompetent, CIA chosen, corporate middle managers who would sell out 'their people' in a heartbeat.
If they couldn't kill us all with "Vaccines", well, perhaps Russian WMDs would do the trick for them.
And President Putin knows all about that level of planning.
>If there is an incoming nuclear tomahawk, they won't have to make the decision to retaliate and literally end the current era of the World.
Oh, please.
There were 528 atmospheric nuclear tests carried out back in the days, all the way to 50 Mt. The world didn't end.
528 in 50 years, not potentially 10 000 in 50 hours.
Of course, life would continue but the current era of human history and achievement will certainly end.
"Putin is a "grandmaster". I'd like to see YOU take over a collapsing state, and reverse course for the largest country on the planet."
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
We've all seen this movie before, a man builds a business, founds a country, restores order, a cat carves out a territory, he defends it, he performs genuinely heroic things - and then runs it all into the ground.
Maybe the times change, maybe he loses his touch, maybe the old nostrums no longer work, maybe new coalitions rise against him, maybe he no longer has the energy hew once did.
It doesn't matter. Results matter.
Even grandmasters get old, get replaced by younger. They're still called "grandmasters" though, even well off their peak.
Doesn't matter. This isn't a Hall of Fame. This is a jungle.
If you want to be a beast without memory, be my guest.
I was very quickly banned there.
They really are an echo chamber there: BRICS4LIFE, NATO defeated, Ukros in disarray, Russian economy booming.
"We all know Russia COULD take action, but the question many are asking must be why it hasn't."
Remember: we have different players with different objectives.
1) Israel wants to get back to Ucraine (said openly by Abramovich in Istambul). Ucraine must therefore be depopulated first.
2) USA wants to repeat the economic wonder (happened after WW1/WW2) thanks to the reconstruction of Europe.
3) the élites in Europe want to control and enslave their population preserving their status.
4) Putin wants to protect the interests of its country.
The best way is therefore to let the above players to realize their objectives: applying a controlled demolition of Europe. That's the reason why Putin acts this way.
Note:
1) Europe is crumbling and as described by prof David Betz Europe will face inserructions. It's a matter of 1-2 years. Therefore Putin just have to wait.
2) In Anchorage Trump and Putin made a deal: I will attack Iran and you will have new opportunities on the market to sell oil at market price while Europe will face a planed economic collapse. The real target of Trump is not China but Europe.
"The US is playing for bigger stakes than Europe"
The USA have a highly financialised economy on the verge of collapse. 21% of young people below the age of 25 are analphabet. Their image is ruined: most people around the world see theme as a bad cop, creating non-stop "terra bruciata".
Therefore wishing something (using your words: "playing for bigger stakes than Europe") remains nothing more than a wish. China and other countries are already years ahead in term of resilience, morality, meritocracy and potential for improvements.
"And I can’t see any evidence Putin is protecting Russia. Just the contrary."
Putin and its entourage remembers non-stop the list of laws Europe and USA are violating around the world. You cannot expect some "police-instance" inflicting a punishment on a super-power. Why? Because laws are frameworks with well defined limitations where they work or not. And between super-powers the "police-instance" never worked and will never work, because there's nothing above theme. The rules are clear. The world understands theme.
The punishment happens indirectly through the behavior of masses, deciding to avoid relationships of any kind with theme: the USA or Europe become therefore paria-entities. And this is the real punishment at super-power-level, that leads to the inevitabile collapse of those that infringe international laws.
By doing "nothing" Puting avoids the trap posed by provocations of Europe and the USA. The trap happens at the moment Russia starts reacting actively to provocations. I know it's not intuitive. But at super-power-level the horizon of actions is at least 30-50 years (more than a generation).
The masses in Europe/USA need first to collapse and feel pain inflicted by themselves through their behavior. This pain will finally initiate positive changes. And at that point everybody will be happy to restart relations with Russia, because Russia behaved allways correctly. That's the reason of Puting, acting as if he would do nothing (the same is valid for other players like China).
Under international law, allowing the use of one’s territory for attacks against another country is considered as an act of aggression (UN security council 3314 (1974)).
PS please avoid the “there is no longer any international law”mantra to dismiss this important question. Of course there is international law, even if certain countries have gone completely rogue. Consider the fact that there are serial killers does not make laws against homicide irrelevant or useless.
Here we go again "I do indeed think there is no such thing as international law"... Really? How is international aviation regulated? Guys chatting over the radio?
I would submit you have no clue about what international law is. Keep parroting the "there is no international law" mantra. Incidentally, international aviation law is founded on the 1944 Chicago Convention.
Brasil. 1
Nós também lemos simplicius. Seus assíduos leitores estão em todo mundo.
Thanks for the translation... Chip
Brazil is awesome….I look forward to visiting!
It would be nice if the nation were an anchor for SouthAmerican solidarity….
and Brazil is not so pro-Russia that it would ignite the USA, after all -- the US is the regional superpower.
would be hard, one is Portuguese and the rest Spanish. This is a part of the world like the Old World where differences are lifelong and forever and always will divide.
How long can you supply weapons without repercussions?
Indefinitely, so far.
Providing other people's crap is not infinite, as we can see.
Judging by Iran - not long
Judging by Russia, apparently, as long as you want.
I think Russian patience is depleting -Iran's example is contagious
When the time is right, and not before. I think the USAns that espouse the DO SOMETHING approach with zero historical context, zero consequences and even less than zero overall intelligence are driving certain narratives. They make no sense at all in practice, so why bother?>
@Chevrus
At some levels, US military activity (and DEFINITELY our MSM reporting of that) are driven by what makes good TV/video for selling adjacent time slots to the advertisers?
So, military/"foreign policy by other means" actions which make for riveting video and can be all summed up in a short video clip between commercials are kind of what those of us who never learned much about history of warfare or ANYTHING about economics & don't like to read now expect- and EVERYTHING is a business model.
Iran, has shown to the world what cowards the Chinese and Russians actually are.
Iran is in a much dire situation than Russia or China are. Hence, the respond accordingly
" Iran is in a much dire situation than Russia or China are. "
Because they wont help Iran properly ;)
Really? Is that your takeaway from the Ramadan War? You must be a real sycophant of Empire. Enjoy it while you can.
The logic leap to arrive at your conclusion must have been miles high. Impressive !
Look at you, becoming a regular GM. Give it another year of indecisiveness and you’ll be calling nor nukes too.
I'll never call for nukes.
1) For five years and counting so far
2) They are not supplying weapons. They are launching weapons from Ukraine.
There is a critical difference.
They're supplying components that make weapons that are assembled in the Ukraine.
There is some of that, but there is also a lot of production of complete weapons outside Ukraine.
I'm sure you're correct
And guiding said weapons.
"How long can you supply weapons without repercussions?"
A long time, because selling weapons (or weapon parts), by itself, has not generally been enough justification to militarily attack the country supplying/selling the weapons or parts. USSR supplied North Vietnam with weapons for decades, but the US didn't escalate to WW3 over it. US supplied UK and USSR with huge amounts of weapons and equipment for a year and Germany didn't declare war on the US over that. Lots of historical examples.
Iran isn't attacking the manufacturers of the weapons being used against it, as many people are trying to argue here as some kind of "lesson for Russia to follow". That is all bullshit. And, Iran is not attacking countries whose only act is "allowing" the US and Israel to overfly their airpace when attacking Iran. No, Iran is not bombing Syria or Jordan or Iraq for that. If they do bomb something in Iraq or elsewhere, it is not a matter of airspace use, Iran is targeting facilities used directly by the aggressor countries, US and Israel.
If Iran targeted all suppliers of weaponry (weapon parts) that are used against them, they would have to target China too. US makers of weapons source materials from all over including, famously, rare earth elements from China. Nobody demands that Iran target China and call them an enemy for that. That would be stupid and childish.
Russia is smart to not emotionally escalate to another BIG step towards full-blown WW3 over dispersed weapons manufacturing and airspace use by countries who are not (yet) DIRECTLY engaged in launching attacks at Russia.
As expected, lots of commenters seem to want Russia to make unnecessary and emotionally charged, massive military escalations and directly attack Europe. Which, just coincidentally I am sure /s, is EXACTLY what all western media has said is Russia's "real goal" for the last 4+ years of non-stop propaganda. And they want the escalation right now!
indeed: growing, violent pro-war PR to mobilise Europe against Russia - same as it ever was: Russia Big Bad and territory-hungry. when will this end already.
You are right in what the Wests strategy is. And they are succesful so far. All dead is on Russias side (and of Ukraine).
You want victory, not death.
Iran did attack economic assets of UAE, Kuweit and Qatar, and not only those that were American owned, while emphasing that Iran does not consider itself with Gulf Arab countries.
It does set a precedent for Russia though, which is why they published the specific addresses of the drone manufactures, warning that they could use same logic to do a strike limited to those addresses, without hitting anything else.
Its a clear signal. As with the gulf states the message will also be clear: nobody will protect you when you FAFO.
Iranian attacks on US bases didnt trigger NATO's article 5. Why? However it was the perfect case for it. Because unlike Russia, the US doesnt believe in the rule of law. I have this feeling that Putin is a man of the past. He doesnt understand the mechanics of the western empire, Its ambiguity, its treachery, its theatrical politics, its real rulers.
This USoA has only become the treacherous lying scoundrels they are when AIPAC and Zionism began buying off politicians with the power of their purse of which much of it comes in the form of US tax payer money they are never asked to pay back. The Zionists demand, our politicians jump to attention, and now they all lie, deceive, cheat, steal, and murder, the Zionist way.
Oh he understands alright. He has more brains in his little finger than all the so called leaders of Europe have in their aggregate brains!
The US did issue tertiary sanctions against countries cooperating with Russia so this is not quite correct. Fact is that this did not escalate to war. Another fact is that the US is taking part in a war by targeting data and attacks evaluation sometimes active as with attacks on Russian Black Sea fleet which could not be done without active participation for target allocation as the targets moved. The alleged help by the 3rd party by not reacting to drones or even facilitating their passage is another thing too although it is very difficult to prove anything. Closing air space along Estonian territory and shooting these things there may be a nice touch tho.
This show us how superior the west is as they have the escalation dominance Russia does not have.
By failing to retaliate and escalate, Russia's enemies are getting closer and closer. Soon, Russia is going to be nuked from Finland.
We must admit that the Western strategy of small step escalation, very simple strategy is successful. Russia cannot defeat Ukraine, not to mention the west. Nobody respects Russia any more, including the Russian urban class who defected from Russia.
As B. Berletic has shown, the aim of the west is to bleed and weaken Russia. This is their triumph. The west is more confident then ever, they are ready to execute genocides like the one in Gaza. Still, nobody ion the Global South rejects US culture, not to mention trade connections.
The human race got what it wanted. An endless fake, American Dream. This convergence, this point, that is the top achievement of the naked ape.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr8ljRgcJNM
If you were to undergo a drug test, how many kilos would they find in your black blood?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c14m5llnrlpo
Finland plans to lift decades-old ban on hosting nuclear weapons
Russia cannot absorb this pressure. The West can, the population is happy.
I too have dreams, but I am aware that they are only fantasies.
“The population is happy”. —— ok you just outed yourself….
The constant Western provocation of Russia is what started this whole war ball rolling!
What a juvenile comment. Why dont you propose a well thought out retort to his comment instead ?
Blah blah blah. Thus spake The Troll. Incoherent nonsense wafting on the breeze as I stroll on by to richer commentary.
It is just that is see through your Puthinophila.
Outed again….. NAFO kicked you out , and now we get you…..thank gawd for the BlockFeature……
Good write and clean analysis.
Leaders in the Wests are experts on smiling, sweet-talking, managing the press, putting up an indignant face and at the same time stab the knife into you.
They have played surprised, un-organized and even naive. Nothing of it is true.
The blood pouring is Russian and Ukraines.
The only flowing in the West is the money.
This is the crux of the matter: the OE could lose its monopoly on "easy money" and that they will not accept without a fight. Could be the fight has well and truly begun.
Yes Cotra. Many here get asshurt when some plain truths are said,and it doesnt mean being anti-Putin. Despite Putins efforts to strenghten the country, he has been repeteadly fooled about the west true intentions for Russia. It is like he cannot understand why Russia cant join the western capitalist club. From the mid-2010s unsimetrically responded sanctions to the Minsk I and II unfulfilled agreements. A poorly prepared SMO and the loss of the nuclear deterrance, empty threats... The slowly grinding Ukraine didnt work either. 2-3 years to take Ugledar or Siversk, bogged down in Kupyansk, Lyman and Kharkov. The bridges on the Dnipr still working... Public offices in Kiev open... Starlink working unmolested.
Yes, there have been improvements in the drone warefare but not enough to have the upper hand. A major gigantic reform of the military production should be under way ASAP, starting by slashing the tank, and selfpropelled artilery production. Its like they prefer to keep those giant factories open for economic reasons instead of carrying out a radical transformation.
This is what AI says about the Russian tank production. Soaring and still not enough to cope with the casualties... There is something very wrong with that.
Russia has significantly ramped up its tank production, with the annual output of T-90M main battle tanks rising from approximately 90–110 units in 2020–2021 to an estimated 280–300 units in 2024. Open-source investigators from the Conflict Intelligence Team (CIT) report that the Uralvagonzavod plant in Nizhny Tagil has shifted to a 24-hour production cycle and is manufacturing tanks from scratch rather than relying solely on modernizing older models.
Current Output: By summer 2024, monthly tank production reached over 130 units, up from 40 in late 2022.
Total Production: Since the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022, Russia has produced at least 540–630 T-90M tanks, leaving an estimated 410–500 units in active service.
Future Goals: Internal documents indicate a plan to increase T-90 production by 80% by 2028, potentially reaching 428 tanks per year, alongside the resumption of T-80 and T-14 production lines.
Despite this surge, production remains insufficient to fully offset battlefield losses, which exceeded 1,000 tanks in 2024 alone. To meet long-term demands, Russia is expanding facilities with new welding stations and machining equipment, though further growth requires significant investment in modern machinery and overcoming sanctions on high-tech components.
I think the main Russian problems are:
- corruption
- the supremacy of oligarchs
- lesser value complex of the Russian elite (related to the west)
you forgot Putin's obvious subservience to the Chabad gang.
Didn't both sides stop using tanks around 2024?
Totally disgusting to tell you the truth!
Projecting your pathetic self-deprecation again?
It hasn't exactly felt like 'we' in the West have been superior in the last 4 years.
We have now resorted to drone attacks to disrupt the international energy flow that just a few years ago our Navies sailed the world for to protect..
Seems much more desperate than superior.
Well, the West does what is in the best interest of the western elites. It can be protection, it can be bombing, it can be genocide or concentration camps. As long as the west can do what it want, unopposed, as long as the rest accepts and buys western culture, the west is superior.
They wouldn't have this problem if they established DETERANCE in Ukraine. Now all European leaders want to be Ukraine. By surviving, Ukraine is winning.
Does your writing have a Ukrainian or Jewish accent? Or both?
Why do Germans prefer to see Ukrainian men go back to Ukraine?
Neither. I'm independent Irish.
Hes using the "global south's" logic. By surviving Iran is winning. Why would it be different for Ukraine ?
Right on target, Jim.
"Winning"? HARDLY!
That guy got the best comment.
My take includes the obvious elevation of profit over any other consideration.
Morality, faith and righteousness are flimsy shields for demonic money worship.
>USSR supplied North Vietnam with weapons for decades, but the US didn't escalate to WW3 over it.
Vietnam wasn't striking the US mainland with hundreds of light cruise missiles every day at the time.
There is a "slight" difference here.
It's time for Russia to take the gloves off, if the Euros aren't willing to see common sense maybe they'll find some sanity in the smoking ruins of an oreshnik strike
It would be stupid for Russia to attack Europe now before defeating Ukraine first. Defeating one army first only leaves one remaining. Divide, attack one side, then conquer the other.
Perhaps its time to take Kiev.
That would be the hardest target with Odessa close second. Regardless, if the numbers are just partially true, that is enough reason to alter course. Theoretically, Russia can lose this war if they allow NATO arm endlessly and to provide for Ukraine.
I am taking the idea more and more seriously since it became clear that Western Europe and the US has actually committed to a long-term rearmament program. At the same time this possibility is conditional on the Russian population developing a strong desire to become slaves and produce fossil fuels for the West for centuries (and handing over their kids for immoral purposes). Even if the general population gives up there I suspect somebody in the leadership will go drastic. I just cannot see them giving up, that would contradict their last thousand years of history.
What you are actually recognising (I think) is that it is time for a change because the West has found a cheap way to keep the war going - just keep producing inexpensive drones forever.
I just cannot see them giving up, that would contradict their last thousand years of history.
^^^this^^^
Historian Barbara Tuchman expands on this concept in her (to me) very depressing book, A Distant Mirror. When all the stupid continental wars and loss of life and futures are totaled...this is just more Europe doing what Europe does 'best' -More wars. Always and forever, more wars. The same old predictable Western Piracy dressed up as heroism and nobility. Again. And again. The sub-title...
"A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century"
This would require the Russian leadership to be infinitely more aggressive and decisive than they have been to date.
No-t to mention, the war has been popular because they average frustrated Russian has not been asked to sacrifice much. The leadership would have to now ask for something very different.
It's not "theoretically", Russia is catastrophically losing the war, and precisely because NATO is allowed total freedom of action
"Catastropically"? Where have you been for the last 5 or 6 years?
Carefully following events.
Where have *you* been?
Your opinion is not held by many of the most informed period in the alt media sphere. It is however shared by all those who eat propaganda for breakfast and have their opinions feed to them by mainstream Western media. Why is that?
Maybe the people in the alt media sphere aren't as informed as you think, has it ever occurred to you?
Who has had a better track record in predicitng the course of events? That is all that matters.
Is it the people who back in mid-2022 were confidently telling you that Ukraine is finished and all that remains is the mopping up, and then for years kept telling you that Ukraine is going to collapse in the next few months?
Or is it the likes of Strelkov?
Speaking of Strelkov, who is better informed about things? Various Westerners or the guy who started the war back in 2014?
Without the political and military support from Kiev Odessa will fall as the Europeans will not be able to defend it.
Yes, that is correct. If Russia has the hardware and develops the will to pull a Gaza on half of Kiev that would likely collapse the Ukraine opposition just by sending millions of refugees all over the country. I can hardly see Putin doing this.
Or do a many have suggested in the past - take Odessa and wall off the doors to Romania and Poland, thus isolating the regime from support.
"I can hardly see Putin doing this."
You're right. Putin is a decent man who does not wage war via mass war crimes against civilians like the US and Israel do.
Better leave Kiev stand alone - too many historical treasures.
Odessa is different.
Russia has enormous borders, and the zionized west is desperate to salvage the Mackinder plan - in vain.
The Vampire Squid could not help itself but bled Europe to death. The DisUnited states of A. are a colossus on the feet of clay. How patriotic is US senat? How advanced is US infrastructure?
" Better leave Kiev stand alone - too many historical treasures. "
A neutron bomb would do the trick.
Perhaps it’s time to do SOMETHING. This Ukraine fiasco is putting me to sleep .
LOL...I'll pass that on to Putin.
Onto Kiev we go, Ray.
Let's pack up our gear and go.
😂
Thank you, Victor.
I know you've been very patient.
Next stop, Kiev, Victor.
Maybe we should visit there after Russia controls it.
Start levelling it slowly but surely- government entities, municipal utilities, roads and bridges. Bring it to acomplete stop and make leveryday life unbearable.
So what has Russia been waiting four years for?
Depletion of NATO weaponry, cracks in NATO cohesiveness (and perhaps even a breakup), deterioration of EU economies, depletion of the Ukrainian army (weaponry, morale, fighting capacity, etc), and modernisation, buildup and reorganisation of the Russian military to better meet the needs of a future war with Europe and possibly the US.
Assuming a lot of facts not in evidence.
No evidence? All of that is happening now and has been since the beginning of the war.
Now thats funny !!
Russia is not fighting Ukraine though, it is fighting the whole West.
And it cannot defeat Ukraine if Ukraine enjoys an untouchable rear.
Good point.
BUT YOU STILL DON'T ENJOY IT; WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM THAT YOU CAN'T DEVELOP A MICRO REDUCTION?
Wow. I actually like a GM post. Will wonders never cease!
Give it time, you'll be barkin' for a tactical on Ramstein, too!
LOL. No.
They don’t seem serious about defeating Ukraine . What is this ? The Thirty year war ?
It takes time to turn wolves into golden retrievers.
lol
Recall, demilitarization, denazification. That is exactly what is happening. At no point was the term "defeat" used in the objectives.
Ukraine is more militarized and more nazified than it was four years ago.
This is a viewpoint that crashes against the wall of reality.
What the hell does that mean? Are you doubting that Ukraine is more militarized? That nationalists were once seen as freaks and losers and now nationalism is the only acceptable ideology?
The Russian leadership has never wanted to fight Ukraine. They still see Ukrainians as sadly misguided brethren.
The Russian leadership has never wanted to fight the West. They want to be allowed to join it.
Its the slo mo SMO, designed to kill as many Slavs as possible.
They are decimating Ukraine to the last man. Noone will be left to steer even a single drone.
Now, without Europe's backing, which would then have no forces left for Ukraine, and the Ukrainian population would actively work against any aid... Without that, the Ukrainian army would quickly reach its end.
And it didn't need tanks to conquer Europe... The air force was sufficient for the time being... before tanks were needed in Berlin.
Why go to Berlin when EU leaders would go to Moscow to sign their surrenders? Iran has demonstrated that there is no need to travel to destroy forces. Imagine what Russia will do in a missile war.
Now, there are a lot of people wanting Russia to hit Europe without defeating Ukraine first.
Are you kidding me? I tell you what. Let Russia hit Europe now and find out how the war in Ukraine magnifies, and Zelensky gets the reinforcements he desperately wants. Then Russia has a bigger problem. Now it must fight a united enemy when it could have defeated Ukraine, and Europe would lose its appetite to cross into Ukraine. It's called deterrence. The longer this war goes the sillier things get. 😂
You cannot defeat Ukraine without taking out Europe. The latter is an absolute prerequisite.
And by taking out we mean nuking to zero, nothing less will suffice.
If you don't nuke to zero, you will indeed only end up with a much bigger war on your hands that you cannot finish.
Not true, unfortunately.
You start shooting conventional missiles at Europe, all you will achieve is the whole of Europe starting to launch drones and missiles at you with no restrictions. And the US wins by destroying both sides. Once again.
You win by taking that possibility away from them.
Yes, they will do exactly that.
The decision making isn't happening in Europe.
Europe is just an even bigger proxy that the Americans have very long ago planned to feed into the bonfire once Ukraine is spent. Which is the point we have reached now after four years of war. And precisely the reason for the content of the main post.
Elena, Re: the two named UK contributors. Apart from the premises in Leicester that makes the "Stickers" t'other is Mildenhall, which I presume is the one in Suffolk and is coincidentally home to a massive USAF base. Back in the Cold War days they stored Nukes there iirc. An Oreshnik attack there would not go down well in Washington, nor (more importantly imo) in the MSM, who would milk it for all it's worth. As for the other addresses, I haven't a clue but it would be interesting to know if they're similarly situated on Military asset sites.
"I just can’t casually consider nuking half a billion people"
I agree with what you are saying, but I respectfully point out the choice is not a binary choice or only a very limited set of choices. It's not a choice between no action, ineffective action, or nuking half a billion people.
You don't need to start the mass slaughter of city-killing like the UK started in Europe in WWII by deliberately carpet bombing civilians in cities, and which the US also started doing in Japan in WWII.
If people took the time to find the "on" switch for their study skills and they read up on what nukes actually are, the very wide range of them that exist, and how those nukes can be used, they'd see there is an extremely wide range of possible uses that do not involve killing half a billion people.
Nuclear strikes on the US/NATO nuclear weapons storage depots in the UK and in Europe could be done with very small nukes with sure-fire destruction of those sites and very little collateral killing of civilians in surrounding villages. Strikes could effectively demilitarize NATO with precision airbursts with very low yield. That would kill a couple of hundred thousand soldiers, but civilian deaths wouldn't be half a billion. They'd only be about a hundred thousand. That's the remarkable thing about high precision use of very small nukes: they are a first rate way of eliminating military targets with less collateral damage.
A conventional war in Europe would kill millions. Precision strikes with very small nukes could head off such a war with civilian casualties only in the hundred thousand range.
I'm not drawing a blueprint for such a war: I'm simply pointing out it's not just a binary choice between doing nothing and killing half a billion people. There is a huge and very complex territory in between those two extremes that covers all sorts of ground which deserves intelligent thought and serious analysis.
Russia might just have to wait out Trump. Hurts to say that.
I agree with you in that if you start using anything non-nuclear the EU will just not declare war and will tit-for-tat forever back to Russia. Why give them that leverage they have been begging for.
If you use a nuke, I could see Trump using one 10x as big to show the Russians he means it! This would give Trump a big distraction from Iran and at that point, when a nuke goes off so will the stock market so gives Trump another thing he can blame. It would also gift the EU some purpose and dare I say creditability to the EU's Van-der leadership.
Russia waited, so now they will have to eat this shit burger for at least two more years as punishment for not settling things sooner. If I were them, I would double down on air defence and drone production and give Iran stuff to bleed out some high end NATO assets. Maybe Russia will get lucky and parts of the west or NATO collapse before then.
If, in a couple years the next USA prez is looking like a Trump 2.0 and EU is getting more armed up then ever, I give my blessing for an all-out, coordinated (Rus-China-NK-Iran) First Strike to settle for the next 50yrs who will be top cop on this giant turd we call earth.
You keep talking about nukes. I don't think you understand what nukes are.
For myself having seen personal and medical accounts of the impact of the radiation on living creatures after Hiroshima in the aftermath as well as years later, I won't want to live on this planet if any nuke is used. It seems I'll want to take my own life at that point. I won't know unless/until we get there.
But I am clear there's no way in my universe I could ever consider that barbarous obscenity something I could benefit from in any way, much less feel like it'd be any kind of "victory" or development that could keep us or anyone "safer" in any way.
Btw GM if you've ever seen an exhibit such as the Hiroshima Panels, it'd be good context for your constant love letters to the bomb. Just to make sure you have some kind of an honest idea of the horrors (rotting flesh, etc) you're clamoring for.
We first had images of radiation sickness victims shown to us, and some quite realistic plastic dummies too, when he had civil defense classes, which was when were 11 or so.
And I happen to have learned much more about those subjects professionally since then.
So spare me the lecture
The reality of the situation is that either Russia exterminates everything between itself and the Atlantic and then moves its border to the Atlantic, with the new line of demarcation with the enemy running along the mid-Atlantic Ridge, or it will be destroyed in an interminable war with Europe, just as the enemy designed it.
That, of course, requires recognition of who the enemy is, both externally (the Anglo-Saxon-Zionist alliance centered in the US) and internally (Dmitriev, Peskovites, Putinism and oligarchs).
And I am yet to see anyone here offer anything more as an objection than emotional appeals to how bad nukes are.
Oops, someone fed a boring troll. Boring! Tell us a joke! Boring!
Do you prefer Khodorkovsky et al?
Or do you believe in the virtues of the likes of Brin, Zuckerberg, Ellison and such?
Russians have their mentality that includes the concepts of fairness and mercy. These concepts are totally absent in the supremacist heads of owners of the collective west.
The dishonorable trash in the form of Hegseth, Kallas, Merz, Donny T & miller are the reflection of the ownership. They are set on burning the western civilization to the ground and to harm Humanity at large if this is necessary to preserve their trough.
Nukes are strategically useless as their use guarantees certain destruction in return. How's that for a non emotional objection?
No, it doesn't guarantee that at all.
"Nukes are strategically useless as their use guarantees certain destruction in return. How's that for a non emotional objection?"
Respectfully, your objection is highly emotional in that it ignores zillions of reasons why what you claim is not true. Let's use a simple thought experiment to illustrate that.
Suppose Israel uses a tactical nuke, say, a mere 5 kiloton airburst, to wipe out an Iranian above-ground atomic installation doing atomic research and uranium enrichment (some of Iran's legacy uranium enrichment is still above ground).
f you go online to any of the online nuclear weapons effects simulations sites and try a 5 kt airburst at optimal altitude over the Iranian atomic installation, you'll see there's very little collateral damage because such installations, like most secret / ultravaluable / military installations aren't located downtown in capital cities. They're out in the desert, and if you get just a small bit away from them an airburst that would totally waste the installation isn't going to knock down houses or cause mass fatalities in villages that are even a couple of kilometers, say a mile, away. But the use of that tactical nuke would still have massive strategic effect.
I trust nobody smart enough to be reading Simp's substack is so intensely stupid as to believe that such an Israeli use of a tactical nuke will "guarantee certain destruction" of Israel in return. There are other cases where Israel or the US could use nukes in Iran without suffering "certain destruction," for example use of a 1 kiloton nuke to wipe out Iranian shore batteries that are threatening to sink a wounded US Marine Corps troop ship.
OK, so now that we've established that there are plenty of plausible uses of nukes in war contrary to your absolute, no compromises claim that any use of a nuke guarantees certain destruction, the real question isn't whether that it does or doesn't, because everybody with an IQ over 40 knows it doesn't, but where the boundary lies between use guaranteeing certain destruction and not.
That's a much more complex question, but it's clearly far, far away from very many uses of nukes that would have strategic impact.
For example, if Russia gave the Baltics and Finland an ultimatum based on their acts of war against Russia to either surrender in one hour or face unlimited war, and then Russia proceeded to use very low yield airbursts (say, in the 1 kiloton range) to wipe out the toy militaries of the Baltics and Finland, perhaps using micronukes to eliminate their governments as well, would that "guarantee certain destruction?"
Hell no. There's no way the US would launch a mass attack on Russia, which would indeed result in a mass response from Russia that would kill nearly 300 million Americans, in response to Russia's highly limited use of a handful of tiny nukes to demilitarize Finland and the Baltics. Again, everybody with an IQ over 40 knows that the US is not going to volunteer to have New York incinerated just because Russia took care of business by flattening the Estonian base in Amari with a tiny nuke.
As to why nukes have never been used, the intelligent way to phrase that question is why they haven't been used *yet*. The answer is simple, that only recently has the common sense, sane approach to war between superpowers been destroyed. It used to be that the people who ran the Western nuclear powers knew it was really stupid to tangle with another nuclear superpower.
They had the experience and intelligence and sanity to channel conflict through proxy conflicts, like Vietnam. Only very recently has there been a mass replacement of more or less competent people in government in the West with highly ideological imbeciles. Personally, I think that's a typical result in empires that have become debased and corrupted. The Western Roman Empire at the end lost basic literacy. Leaders were warlords who were barely literate, a huge difference even from the rise of the Principate when Julius Caesar himself was actually a pretty good writer (along with being a remarkably lucky warlord).
As empires get fat and happy their people become cretins and then those cretins elect leaders in their own image. That pretty much describes the US and the intellectually and morally failed states of the EU. They have become so stupid that they don't reject military adventures that only end one way, with them getting incinerated.
No more writing for you until you stop sniffing glue, Dr. Lovestrange
"I won't want to live on this planet if any nuke is used"
Well, in that case you are well and truly screwed, because over 540 nukes have already been used, that is, exploded, in the open atmosphere, space, on or below the oceans, and in some truly epic cratering shots. You're living on a planet where hundreds of nukes, some of which were vastly larger than Hiroshima, have exploded in the open atmosphere.
In fact if you take just the top ten largest nuclear explosions ever, those range from 10 megatons to over 50 megatons, for a total combined "top ten" yield of about 214 megatons. The Little Boy device that exploded over Hiroshima had a yield of only 14 kilotons, so just the "top ten" explosions were the equivalent of about 15,300 (yep, that's *fifteen thousand three hundred*) Hiroshima explosions.
Yet, we're still here and that "we're still here" includes people who can't be bothered to learn the slightest bit about or apply the slightest common sense to discussions of nuclear weapons but who will babble nonsense about nukes at the drop of the hat, infecting pretty much every social media channel and discussion forum with wildly wrong opinions.
If you want to clutch your pearls or strike some sort of indignant pose about barbarous cruelty in war, there are even worse events involving conventional weapons in WWII than Hiroshima. More people died in the firebombing of Tokyo, where the US deliberately used incendiary bombs to ignite a firestorm. It's still an open question if more people (the weight of analytic opinion is leaning towards "probably yes") in the firebombing of Dresden.
For that matter, in the horrors of war department such as rotting flesh or children being burned alive, the entire fire bombing campaign the US ran against Japanese cities or the UK against German cities easily tops Hiroshima.
Finally, for those who want to discuss reality instead of turning their minds off like a faulty light switch the moment the topic includes anything nuclear, there is a vast difference between use of small yield tactical nukes and strategic city killers.
To take an obvious example, any of the nuclear powers could wipe out a US aircraft carrier at sea, completely amputating the US's ability to project force with that carrier, and there would be no collateral killing of civilians on shore. An airburst would sink the thing and pretty much ensure the deaths of anybody aboard with extremely little fallout, much less than the fallout already spread around the planet by the 540 nukes, many of them truly huge and dirty, that have already exploded.
Tactical nuclear strikes on Europe would do the world the favor of ridding civilization of a bunch of Nazi loving assholes in Nazi-loving centers like Berlin, Tallinn, Warsaw, and so on with very little collateral damage to the populations and economic infrastructure of Europe.
I grant that the UK and France would require more effort, since Russia would want to vaporize their ballistic subs (only one on patrol for each) to cut their nuclear deterrence nuts off, but hey, that's a matter of timing and a relatively simply matter to achieve by tailing them when they sortie with a Poseidon drone. For bonus points, detonate the thing (100 megaton yield, so they say...) near the exit from the Scottish fjord where the thing sorties from or near the French coast so there's enough of a mini- or micro-tsunami to make sure coastal populations get the message that it's a really bad idea to attack Russia.
Just saying, use of nukes is not an automatic kill switch for all life on Earth (or all life would have ended back in the 50's) nor is use of nukes in war an automatic step into total exchanges involving thousands of city killing weapons.
The trolls of boredom are of themselves boring.
>In fact if you take just the top ten largest nuclear explosions ever, those range from 10 megatons to over 50 megatons, for a total combined "top ten" yield of about 214 megatons. The Little Boy device that exploded over Hiroshima had a yield of only 14 kilotons, so just the "top ten" explosions were the equivalent of about 15,300 (yep, that's *fifteen thousand three hundred*) Hiroshima explosions.
For some more context.
The Tunguska meteorite explosion had yield of around 10 Mt.
The Meteor Crater one was 10-20 Mt.
Such events happen once every few hundred years.
Smaller ones are much more frequent -- the 2013 Chelyabinsk meteorite had yield of around 500 Kt, and it exploded near a populated area.
Now these are single events, fairly spread out in time, and not that huge.
But then we have the hits on the other extreme of the scale. The Chicxulub one was 100 Tt. Teratones, not gigatones, and not megatons. Some 200 million times larger than Tsar Bomba. And on that scale the effects were indeed quite catastrophic. Fortunately these only happen on time scales of once a hundred million years.
Those numbers are highly relevant for placing nukes in context though -- all the nuclear warheads in existence today amount to less than 10 gigatons. So 10,000 times less than Chicxculub.
Now how frequently do impactors of size comparable to 5-10 Gt explosion yields strike Earth? Once every 100,000 to 200,000 years. And they obviously have practically no effects on the planet.
The survival of the planet is not in question. Human civilization is the issue.
Learn the art of brevity, you'll reach a much wider audience.
<sarcasm>Oh good. I was worried you'd gone soft.</sarcasm>
It's pretty profound how much impact Iran's 'weapons free' strategy has had, even in the short term - it is objective proof of the efficacy of 'escalate to de-escalate' and has US on their heels.
Elena is right though - the pernicious tendency to assign US policy to the come and go characters is an ongoing deficiency in so many peoples analysis - US foreign policy is an undeviating vector unto itself.
Wicked debate here - as fascinating as it is horrifying. Thanks?
It all comes down to the US. If striking Europe brings the US in it is deeply counterproductive. However European militaries are a joke in this kind of warfare. Tiny force structures and even smaller weapon stock piles. Incredibly anaemic support from the population. Once the body bags start coming back it won’t take long before Europe fractures and gives up.
"It all comes down to the US." You think the US has the means to aid Europe?
Yes if its population was behind it. They are not however, and the politicians are too corrupt to turn the MIC from a profit producing industry to a weapon producing industry. Europe is no different just on a micro scale. Ukraine has the best land force of any European country which has been shown in various recent NATO exercises.
The Ukraine is NOT a "European country"! Even if Russia were to disappear tomorrow, "Ukraine" will never be a "European" country.
Is it an Asian country then? I am using European in the geographical sense not some subjective ‘cultural Europe’ or the EU.
"Ukraine has the best land force of any European country"
Respectfully disagree. The Kiev regime has an exhausted land force with horrific demographics that is hanging on by a thread, alive only because Russia is prosecuting the conflict in an extremely limited way, Russia's intent being to minimize Russian losses while enabling the Russian economy to grow in a Russia that is almost entirely unaffected by war.
A war between Russia and the US's EU stooges would be a very different thing and it would immediately result in the wrath of real war, and not the current highly limited conflict. Russian strikes into marshalling and supply centers in the EU countries that are propping up the Nazi regime in Kiev would wipe out what's left of the Kiev regime's army.
The real "Ukrainian" army that is the best land force of any European country is the army of (former) Ukrainians in the four new territories plus Crimea.
Compared to Russia, Ukraine is inferior and will eventually lose. Compared to the UK, France or Germany, assuming Ukraine was fighting on home soil they would send them home in a few months. This is simply because they have a much larger pool of trained manpower familiar with the reality of modern warfare than any Western European country. Hence, I don’t think Russia should be intimidated by any of these countries unless they have the backing of the US. Nothing would end British, French or German involvement in Ukraine faster than a brigade of their army (I very much doubt they could support anything larger) getting chewed up on the steppe. If the US is sufficiently distracted elsewhere, Russia should adopt a carrot and stick approach with Europe (ie recent Spanish gas deal) making cheap energy available to those who withdraw support for Ukraine, but being more belligerent with those who don’t (ie sinking naval vessels which attempt to illegally seize Russian tankers in international waters)
Hhhmm. I understand your point. However, I can't see an "united enemy" entering Ukraine in order to confront Russia. It's been discussed long and far how small the armies of the main European powers are in terms of available fighting men and materials since a lot ,if not most, of those materials have already disappeared in the black hole of Ukraine. Furthermore, I can see no appetite among European men, or what's left of a masculine menhood there, which is not much and only to be found in the older generation (35 + I'd say) to go to any war, let alone face the Russians in their own backyard.
So yeah nah ,in my humble view that is not a worry for them. Different story if the yanks were to join tho.
After 4 years don’t you think it’s time to take decisive action . Enough with the innuendo
In the article there are some assumptions that keep misleading us about the bigger picture, like the claimed US threats to leave their bases in Europe. Oh, please do, since Europe is an American occupied territory since 1945. There is not a chance for this happening. The Ukraine war is an American war. Like for Iran, it follows to the letter the Rand Corporation's papers against Iran, Russia and China. The US keep arming and financing the fascists as there is no tomorrow.
The Russians know very well that the whole NATO machine is backing the Ukranian proxy shell and increasingly so. The Russian advances in the last year are pacing down, are poor and disappointing. The whole German and Polish industries and economies are fully implicated in the Kiev regime surviving, not to mention the Baltics .
Why do the Russians make it public now? Because of the Iranian destruction of 20 American bases in the gulf and the near obliterarion of the zionist entity. The Russian people start to make unconfortable questions about Putin's strategy. His image is compromised. Russia has lost its deterrance allowing NATO to bomb them on a daily basis and even destroy critical facilities, nuclear triad sites and even targetting the head of state life. I can understand this could be seen as provocations in order to trigger an allout Russian response which would guarantee the so desired American intervention in Europe. But lets face it. The American intervention in Europe was never im question..They are fully involved in Ukraine. A destruction of Europe would be very much in their interest. From commercial competitors Europe would become extraction colonies. And last but not least, Russia has kept selling oil and gas to Europe all these years. The Russian threats are no longer credible. Their massive missile strikes on Ukraine cannot break Ukraine because the Ukraine is already an empty shell, buy their strategic rear is and will be untouched by Russia.
Concerning the tankers war ships scorts, it was the only response to an act of war. Russia was progrssively being strangled by sea. But the empire will only double down. The end is not at sight
Yoni Reinón
<<<<<The Russian advances in the last year are pacing down, are poor and disappointing.<<<<<
Clearly you are unfamiliar with the geography of the region in general and especially the nature of winter there. Every winter, the western media claim the Russians are stalemated even though they are always steadily advancing. Non stop questions about why Russia doesn't just launch massive charges against defensive lines like they do in Hollywood movies.
Were I Leading Russia … Wars have phases. European weapons have largely been consumed in Ukraine. So now we enter the next phase against NATO. To date, Putin has largely ruled out covert action on legal/ quasi-moral grounds. This may be the biggest rethink required.
Europe’s top vulnerability is the hatred of its native populations for their fake democracies. Russia has the option to weaponize that, and also target key facilitators and the people behind its propped up “leadership” class. That class has no choice but war, as its finances are doomed without new plunder. Every day should make its very existence harder, as the central crux of Russia’s war.
Working inside Europe’s foreign janissary “refugee” communities at the same time would frustrate future weaponization attempts against Russia, while creating very interesting lose-lose dilemmas for Europe’s Quisling class.
If Europe must be hit with strikes, its energy infrastructure is a far better target than drone factories, and symmetric. LNG terminals are top of that escalation ladder.
The USA’s vulnerabilities are its own proxy wars, and Israel. I have little doubt that some Iranian strikes have Russian targeting help, a mirror of Ukraine.
The twist here is that Russia wants good relations with the GCC arabs.
It’s also thinking about keeping US involvement limited rather than collapsing its regime - which, in a mirror of Iran-US, is superficially tempting but not realistic.
Ruling out the removal of people like Sen Graham and other warmongering neocons might be worth a rethink, though.
I'd start with the RADA complex in Kiev and move on from there. Let them know your going to destroy it so they can get the people out then levell it. Destroy all bridges over the Dneipro and see how they react.
As long as Russia is run by a spineless western loving idiot, there's no chance of a fight. His constant love for Alaska nonsense is evident by now, despite recent sanctions from the US side, Russians are still harping for peace talks nonsense. Kiril Dimitrovs constant sucking upto Trump is pathetic at this time.
Why did he start the SMO in the first place then?
Because they believed showing like tens of thousands of tanks inside Ukraine will win the war for them fast. This was obviously a miscalculation.
Actually, they were not sure what would happen, especially economy wise, but they had to preempt assault on DLPR.
But, why would he antagonize West if he loves West?
"The best" explanation offered here was that commies would win in Russia, if he hadn't done anything. Here you have it, he went in in order to prevent commies from winning.
That best explanation is highly credulous. Communist party support in Russia has never exceeded 20% since 2000 and in the last presidential election was under 5%. They currently hold just 57 of 450 seats in parliament.
Thought I should make that clear in case anyone took you seriously.
lol, grade 1 level thinking.
We can call it a miscalculation in hindsight but not obvious; as an opening gambit it almost succeeded and Ukraine, left to their own devices, would have capitulated.
Coulda woulda shoulda.
Failed.
No, there was no "win" intended.
They wanted talks. The effort was successful.
The Istanbul accords were initialed. Johnson told Zelensky -- "No".
Now we are here.
Again - coulda woulda shoulda.
You are correct concerning Johnson’s role. On the other hand whenever Russia shows up with 20,000 tanks and asks for diplomatic exchanges people get slightly worried. The talking went on and on before the march, I think Zelensky wanted that war as well. He received years of assurances and support by then.
Well, if Kiev had complied with Minsk 1 and/or Minsk 2, the Russians would not have felt the need to show up.
I dunno, you seem to be a guy who would have already listened to Berletic and his explanation.
Do you know Scott Horton and his book "Provoked".
Yes, Zelensky wanted the war, but the USA wanted it more and, in fact, had been working on it since before the collapse of the USSR.
Do you know Aaron Good and his "American Exception"?
Zelensky just wanted the money.
‘Well, if Kiev had complied with Minsk 1 and/or Minsk 2, the Russians would not have felt the need to show up.’
Absolutely correct. This was a conflict built systematically by the US side for decades. When Zelensky showed up as ‘the servant of the people’ I knew things were going the very wrong way. I will never be able to comprehend how Ukrainians fell for this blood and money hungry little bastard. I did not read the books you mentioned but I did develop a full image of prior events after the war started.
To save his own skin, and to save his Western masters' skin too.
The prospect was for millions of Russians to be streaming into Voronezh and Rostov as refugees from the Banderite bashibozuk, with hundreds of thousands who would not have been able to flee slaughtered.
And for the Ukro-NATO-Nazi army to quite possibly not stop at the border, but to continue further and seize Taganrog, Rostov and who knows what else.
That would have been the end of Putin because no Russian leader who allows such a catastrophe to unfold while sitting on his hands the same way he had been sitting on his hands for the previous two decades could survive.
It may well have been the end of the oligarchic post-Perestroika model too, because that would have been immediately questioned as a primary reason for the catastrophe.
Putin preempted them so that he could stay in power and preserve the existing order. But real victory was never part of his agenda.
And also, as I said in the beginning, he did to save his Western masters.
Because the next thing that happens after such a catastrophe unfolds is that someone who is not Putin takes power in the Kremlin and physically erases Europe from existence and does what Stalin was not able to because the Americans were so far ahead with their nuclear program.
In retrospect it would have been better for Russia if it had gotten the June 22 treatment again and it had been forced to react to that.
Millions were streaming from 2014 to 2022 and after the SMO started. Invalid.
Yes, Ukies dream of Greater Ukraine, just like any self-respecting ultra-nationalist dreams of "Greater whatever", but historically they are just murderous losers. incapable of achieving any statehood on their own. Now they will implode a state, that they were unbelievably lucky to get after the collapse of the USSR.
Stalin, in your own words, destroyed USSR in the long run by taking unbelievable demographic toll, which is what Russia is not taking now. With other words, Putin achieving what Stalin achieved would be a disaster for Russia, long term.
And I will repeat again, like a broken record, Stalin left neo-Banderite problem for Putin to sort out now.
Leaving aside all of the differences between total war and SMO aside.
>Millions were streaming from 2014 to 2022 and after the SMO started. Invalid.
Not at once.
>Stalin, in your own words, destroyed USSR in the long run by taking unbelievable demographic toll, which is what Russia is not taking now.
No, that is not in my own words. The USSR was destroyed by the Anglos and the Americans successfully pitting the German rabid dog against the USSR. Stalin saved the USSR by preparing for it to the extent he could, at an enormous cost. But it was ultimately not enough.
>Stalin left neo-Banderite problem for Putin to sort out now.
Stalin should have killed them all, that is correct. The Baltics too. Huge mistake. I guess he was too broken at that point by the strategic loss that was the war to carry out such measures. Also, the Americans had nukes, he didn't. That severely limited his freedom of action.
But it wasn't Stalin who let them out of the GULAGs, Khrushchev did that. And it most definitely wasn't Stalin who allowed them in the party to undermine it from within
Why put them in Gulags to start with? Kaja Kallas whines about her grandmothers family ending up in Gulags, yet somehow she exists.
Stalin did not assassinate Bandera, Khrushchev did.
Demographic toll undermined USSR in the long run.
But anyway, wars are incomparable.
Putin had to prepare Russia economically, because that was the main planned hit. People work on the issues reality presents to them. We still might end up in a total war. Even then it would be incomparable, economically, technologically, militarily, etc.
It would just be total war, with much greater destructive capabilities we have today.
>Why put them in Gulags to start with?
We don't disagree. He should have killed them all, and he should have also redrawn the borders, i.e. the post-war Ukraine is the territory west of the Zhytomyr-Vinnytsia line, Kiev, Odessa and everything east of them becomes part of the RSFSR.
But he had to keep a lot of people happy internally and this would have been a hard sell.
Also, if he were to kill 3-4 million people in the 1946-1959 period, that may well have given the Americans an excuse to launch nuclear strikes. You can't understand Stalin's very constrained behavior in the 1945-1950 period without invoking the nuclear factor. It's why Greece was lost (which was one of the long-term fatal blows) and why the Americans were allowed to establish themselves in Korea and Japan (another long-term fatal strategic defeat). There were catastrophic second-order effects too -- Stalin's inaction in Greece pissed Tito off, and the effects on the Chinese regarding Korea were similar.
>Putin had to prepare Russia economically, because that was the main planned hit.
But he didn't do even that...
Kaia Kallas great grandpa was a chief of the Soviet Estonian police. Her daddy was a prominent Soviet apparatchik. The whole family is an example of power-greedy opportunism
To be technically correct, it was Khrushchev who allowed the Banderites to return from Siberia in 1953.
I find it "interesting" that no one else mentions the fact that it was the OSS that organized this resistance group and encouraged them to attack Soviet troops before WWII ended.
And of course, the most obvious point that they have presence in Canada and New York state.
Like all this is "Putin's fault". Give me a break. You guys gotta get into Aaron Good. You're really missing out. You've settled yourselves into two camps that just jaw one another over and over and over again with the same limp-dick excuses and fantastical claims while totally ignoring what's really going on.
Projec Aerodynamic, Red Sox Operation etc and such are known.
Yes, Khrushchev de-Stalinised them, but Bandera was assassinated in 1959. But to cut Stalin some slack, Konovalets was assassinated under Stalin.
Konovalets - a prominent Nazi collaborator - is a symbol of “independent Ukraine” for the zionized Kievan junta
You really despise Putin don't you.
So much so that you can't imagine most Russians still trust him.
Just as the Iranians trust their government.
Russians and Iranians know who the threat is. All they have to do is see what's happening in each other's backyard.
Russia is no longer trying to gain western approval. The Russia, China, Iran cooperation is doing "just fine".
Why aren't you whining about Trump's inadequacies. If the US is so powerful why haven't they finished the job.
Because he's a traitor. I've sadly come to this conclusion a while ago after reading some of Riley Wagaman's substacks. Check this out - it explains quite a bit ... https://seemorerocks.substack.com/p/chabad-runs-russia-and-that-includes
Oh, Chabad thingy.
Don't have time for the video.
How is SMO treacherous?
Well, that's a garbage stack.
🤦🏻 You still working that out?!
Could you chip in some intelligent explanation?
Like yours you mean? 🤔 By now, it's perfectly clear what the story has been all along. No? Now Ukraine is being royally shafted by their mates and Russia is taking a very long view on the whole affair, much to the annoyance of those that would like to see some carpet bombing and big headlines...
What is my interpretation? I can only speculate and it is a genuine question.
Why would Russia care about and make plans based on the annoyance of retired westerners?
Because war is full of unintended consequences and the US (along with it's hangers on) can be very dangerous. They present a problem that cannot be ignored. Unfortunately. The SMO is a skilled compromise to an all out war (at least I think so).
His "sucking up" to Trump is an effective way to keep Trump from making stupid decisions as pertains Russia - it's how you deal with an insane narcissist.
No, actually it works to keep the relationship on a calmer basis.
Putin knows how to handle Trump.
BTW, you should do a bit of research on that "appeasement" - it might surprise you what really happened.
Cope, Sarah, cope harder. Neither khodorkovsky nor browder prevailed. The money lenders are terribly disappointed.
Zero. That's the chances of Russia doing anything. In fact zero is too big a number. They allowed themselves to be boiled so many times already that it doesnt even matter anymore.
Yes, russia is fighting the whole of europe essentially but they limited themselves to the territory of ukraine. And the slow motion war means that even europe had enough time to scale up manufacturing and production. Reestablishing deterrence is impossible, its 2 years too late
Shoigu came out publicly and said that HIMARS and Storm Shadow strikes on Crimea mean war back in early June 2023.
Putin came out publicly multiple times and said the same about missile attacks on pre-war Russia.
Why should anyone take this new set of threats seriously this time?
Slow motion is right .like watching paint dry
Being so slow that fricking europe is able to scale up manufacturing is an accomplishment indeed
Russia fights on geological time
Europe's impending oil shortage will severely limit its industrial ability to produce drones. The U.S. has bitten off more than it can chew in Iran. This is the opportune time for Russia to strike back against the EU. We shall see what happens.
Can power cities with that hopium
Cope harder, little Sarah.
Sorry, but Trump clearly said the U.S. has plenty of oil to sell to everybody. Are you saying you don't trust the Commander in Chief of the greatest country on Earth?
Russians don’t do carpet bombing. They are humans.
Yes and no.
Technically it is never too late to establish deterrence, that's nonsense.
What would prevent it?
If you strike hard and ruthlessly enough nothing will.
Europe has not become any less helpless and vulnerable against russian strikes if they were to actually happen, if anything the opposite.
And the fact that they have been allowed to feel untouchable for so long would only make the shock worse.
European elites continue to live because Russia allows them to live, same as at every prior point of the conflict.
That said, no, Russia will not take any decisive action this time around either.
But that is made all the worse because the possibility and capability always remain.
Nobody in the world has "taken off the gloves". Nobody seems willing to. Few dare to raise their voices.
Russia is stuck. Iran and its immediate allies are stuck. China watches as the Western consortium prepares their cage next. Everyone waits for Cuba to be under siege.
Anyone standing up now is too little and has acted too late.
To be free from The Matrix is liberating, but look around. History must record the incredibly limited and reluctant interest in confrontation.
But anyone who deigns stand up to the rabid dog that is the US (and Israel) threatens to provoke the war that destroys the world.
The US has shown zero ability to self-soothe and is all-escalation all the time.
Lots of people have been warning that the longer the Kiev Regime is allowed to hang around the greater the chances are for desperate, impromptu strategies to emerge from Ukraine and the West. Enough slow walking attrition strategies... just end this damn thing with bold lightening strikes.
" just end this damn thing with bold lightening strikes"
We are seeing two very different approaches in the real world. Russia has been doing a slow grind in the Ukraine for 4 years -- and still the war goes on. The US and Israel had an extremely successful lightning strike in Iran, cut off the head of the snake -- and still the war goes on.
As an economist once said, "There is a lot of ruin in a nation". The idea that "lightning strikes" could bring the war in the Ukraine to a quick end is not supported by any real world history. In WWII, the Germans blitzed London ... and the war went on. The English killed over a hundred thousand civilians with their fire bombing raid on Dresden ... and still the war went on. The US took the hint and firebombed Tokyo causing immense destruction ... and still the war went on.
To end the war in the Ukraine, Euro citizens would have to stage massive demonstrations & strikes against their own governments to force a change of leadership who will cut off support for Zelensky. Not going to happen. Euro citizens are cattle.
"Euro citizens are cattle."
Europeans like being slaves.
I'm no military genius but it's not hard to envision a decisive attack, simultaneously on many levels; however, this may require upgrading from SMO to the status of a Declared War.
I'm sure the Russian military command has an all out victory plan ready to implement. Furthermore, The Correlation of Forces calculation and military cultures are very different in Ukraine than in Iran. The key point is clear: Time is no longer on the side of Russia.
Ukraine claims it has already introduced combat robots on the battlefield. Lots of western firms will voluntarily supply these assets in a real war for testing. Russia still hasn't figured out drone EW... God knows what happens when robots enter the battlefield.
Europe is also regrouping and pumping in more resources than ever into the Ukrainian state. Germany is planning for near term war on Russia. It would be a huge advantage to them if NATO forces could be deployed at the banks of the Dnieper instead of the Polish border.
You wrote, "I'm no military genius."
Yes, that goes without saying.
But you don't have to be a genius to identify a devastating strategy that's doable... the slow walk option is failing. Ukraine may be at its weakest point right now.
Right.
US/NATO is still pumping enough arms and dollars into Ukraine to keep it from collapsing (barely), and you are running out of patience. So, to ease your irritation, Russia should ignite the current World War 3 (a hybrid war in which we have all been living since the 2014 Maidan Coup, approximately) and bring the human world to a thrilling, blazing, thermonuclear conclusion.
Or, you could take a warm shower and go for a walk in fresh air. Maybe that will clear your head, at least until tomorrow. If not, go back to bed and put a pillow over your head.
Wrong. Now is the time to play long-ball when Ukraine is at its weakest.
That won't last long. US/NATO is forcing Ukrainian men in the EU back to the front lines. In 2027 the AFU will have a new 300K man army... and another 90 Billion euro to work with.
Right now Russia can't cope with Ukrainian air drones. What happens when Kiev introduces 4-legged robots with mounted heavy fire guns and mortars?
But hey... keep slow walking while NATO and the Ukrainian proxies keep attacking Russian military and oil assets on land and sea, mounting a new army and introducing an AI/ robotic battlefield.
Sorry Duane ... only someone pretty oblivious to recent developments could be so smug and snotty. Let me give you some clues that demonstrate WWIII has already broken out: 1) Russian warships now accompany merchant vessels to prevent hijackings by Western powers; 2) Russian passage on the Black Sea is now a perilous journey; 3) Russia is warning Baltic (ie NATO) States that they face retaliation for allowing Ukie missiles to transit their territory on the way to Russian targets.
And as mentioned earlier, the NATO states are forcing repatriation of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men to fight on the front lines; while new technology is entering the battlefield all the time.
So maybe some pro-activity is now in order.
Poland and Baltic States keep a very close eye on their Russian border areas. The only way Ukraine can pull these tricks is by the close cooperation, tolerance of these four states. It is difficult for them to step away from the responsibility and claim plausible deniability. When these border areas become warzones Russia has every right to attack the drones regardless they are on the other side of the border or not. At the same time there is little question that this is exactly the reaction Zelensky and the Baltics are seeking. They can assure their own security only by dragging into the war Germany and other states. The German military is already into the Baltics here and there.
Yes, cause the victims among the people is a risk their leaders are willing to take while they and their family reside somewhere safe. A decapitative strike would be the right way to move forward. They started and pushed, let’s not punish the ‘innocent’
The small Baltic States worked their way gradually deper and deeper into this hole where they just have to beat Russia regardless what it takes in order to survive. NATO or no NATO the endgame points toward the possibility of the Baltics losing their independence again. If that happens I will feel sorry for them but that is not going to help them.
Why feel sorry. I think Russia is doing quite well, better than many if not all European nations. Expensive societies, high living standard, resource poor, de-industrialization, immigration issues. Their leaders may see the only way out: war
‘Why feel sorry’
Sorry will not be extended to Kallas and Gang. I already wrote some years ago that those crazy chicks need to be chained to the walls of their own kitchens.
😂
Oeps, does my laughing make me a misogynist?
I love women, but some, especially in western power structures are evil.
Chances are that I actually love women far more than you do:)) As far as Kallas, I truly believe that she is deeply corrupted and lacks moral guidance.
A HS friend of mine married an Estonian woman about 4+ decades ago. Reflecting on the few unfortunate conversations I've had with her over the years, I still look back with awe at the white-hot hatred she had for the Russians. I've never heard a 1950-era Alabama peckerwood launch bile against their black neighbors on a similar scale. Just off the charts...
The Baltic states and Poland all had similar experiences with the Russian/Soviet occupations and it was long and extremely unpleasant. It was actually even worse, a real existential threat to them they are still trying recover from. For them the brutality of the 20th and earlier centuries is still a part of reality they cannot walk away from. If you travel around in Europe, ex-East German, Polish, Hungarian territories ask them and you get the same stuff.
To Nail :)
If they keep it up, Krapivnik says Russia will eliminate them.
Eventually the bear gets tired of the barking chihuahua.
Fingers crossed...
For four years, we've been hearing how Russia is going to really take off the gloves for real this time, Putin said that this latest sucker-punch really wasn't fair. Medvedev mumbled something stern, a strongly-worded email perhaps, just you wait and see! FAFO!
And nothing happens. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Why the rush?
The US is quickly depleting its AD and stand-off weapons system against Iran. Production rates are ridiculously slow. Aircraft carriers have been shown to be obsolete. There are the two articles about the problems the F35 has, so much so that the Marines have cancelled the VTOL version and are buying carrier versions., and the one about "not enough tankers".
It isn't like the EU is going to have a viable force anytime soon.
China and Taiwan are making kissy faces at one another because Taiwan is being starved of energy.
There's probably a lot of Sun Tzu going on.
Resources are probably being prioritized to Iran. While we all "know" that the US is going to violate the cease fire with a surprise attack, it isn't like Iran isn't ready for it. 13 US bases have been destroyed in West Asia. The Marines on the Tripoli are being fed spoonfuls of mystery meat.
Americans are turning against Israel. Russia/China/Iran see "regime change" in America as a possibility. Why interrupt it?
In the meantime, Ukrainians are dying. Who's to say which side is being honest with their causality figures?
I am willing to consider that Russia may not want to advance because why not stay where everything has already been destroyed. No reason to destroy another building that will have to be replaced.
Then there's guessing at what the US end-game is. With energy cut off from the Gulf, Johnson is predicting the bottom 25% who live in Italy will be starving by September. Starvation may be very much wide spread around the world.
"Everyone" is predicting super inflation in the US and the dollar losing "everything".
Why risk Russian resources advancing on Europe now?
Think about it. The US entered the War in 1941 but didn't invade France until 1944. They did it to fuck over the Russians, of course. I don't think Russia and China are trying to fuck over Iran. Iran is handling the US. The GCC states are on the verge of self-destruction. Iraq and Turkey are both pissed at Israel.
How much longer can al Sisi keep his generals under control before one of the Captains pulls a Burkina Faso Traore?
You keep being impatient because.... you're just impatient.
I won't bring up the strategy the US is planning around the Malacca strait. There are more than enough critics.
I should mention though that the US is bleeding Europe white.
You gotta offer us something more strategic other than "it makes Russia look weak." LOL! Russia don't care.
Without bothering to unpack that Gish Gallop in detail, the fact is that the Russian military is stalled and still taking heavy casualties.
I do agree on the decapitative strikes on the heads of the four "cur" states that are Ukraine's rear. The USA does it, so why not Russia. The citizens of those countries might even send Putin a thank you note for ridding them of their lice.
Get rid have the word might and I am full in!
They will definitely thank Putin😀
Most Likely! The parasites are sucking us all dry!
Totalitarian is coming if not already here
Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism and The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek should be required reading EVERYWHERE.
Of course, a decapitation strike on Lithuania would need to be aimed at addresses in Washington, London, and Brussels. Nauseda and his boys are just faces.
Good thinking! It did not cross my mind.
>Yes, cause the victims among the people is a risk their leaders are willing to take while they and their family reside somewhere safe.
That doesn't really describe the Baltics.
A primary reason the Baltics still exist is that during WWII they were fairly evenly split, i.e. the interwar governments had been outright Nazis, and half the population was that too, but there were also a lot of sincere communists who fought to the death against the Nazis. They had also played a major role in the Russian Civil War on the side of the Red Army. So the Germans are cleared from the Baltics, and Stalin cannot just kill everyone or pack them into ships and launch them towards Germany, because he has hundreds of thousands of Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian true communists in his own ranks who would object quite forcefully if he was to do that.
But today there is no such split, the majority of the population is fully brainwashed into being unrepentant Nazis. And this is no longer a bad elites/good people situation.
So, the Nazi colony of Ostland still exist.
Well, Russia needs to take care of Ukraine first and defeat it before any thought of starting a greater war, as I've been saying for years.
In the words of Dmitri Medvedev,"Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia's Security Council, has consistently articulated that Russia's core war aim is to inflict a "maximum defeat" on Ukraine, rejecting any peace that does not involve its total capitulation.
His vision for a "peace" settlement, often presented with sardonic language, demands the complete dismantling of the Ukrainian state, which he refers to as a "former" country. This includes:
Unconditional surrender and recognition of military defeat by Ukraine.
Demilitarization of Ukraine and the dissolution of its government and armed forces.
International recognition of Ukraine's loss of sovereignty, with a ban on any future state joining military alliances without Russia's consent.
Formal annexation of all Ukrainian territory into the Russian Federation, which he frames as a "reunification."
Medvedev has stated that even if a formal agreement is signed, Russia would eventually return to "crush" any remaining opposition, viewing the current conflict as a civilizational war to permanently eliminate Ukraine as an independent entity. He has dismissed Western peace initiatives and sanctions, claiming Europe has failed to defeat Russia while damaging itself economically."
And according to Strelkov,"when it comes to the SMO that people like Strelkov insist quite correctly that only the end of Ukrainian Statehood will suffice, anything less just kicks the can down the road.
Currently, Russia is in no position to broaden its front. It's of no use to threaten Europe when Russian forces are still caught in a WW1 positional trench attrition warfare and going nowhere, while Europe prepares for war with it. All common sense dictates that Ukraine must be defeated, as Medvedev and Strelkov point out. It's also what I've been saying all along. I doubt Europe would attack a Russian-controlled Ukraine. So there's that to consider too.
Who, or what, are you quoting because, quite frankly, none of that makes much sense to me?
The quotes are from Medvedev and Strelkov's opinions on what Russia should do in Ukraine, simply meaning that only its surrender is satisfactory to eliminate Ukraine as a future threat. That's it in a nutshell, Tony.
Thanks, but the quote begins, " Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia's Security Council, has consistently articulated.......". Tthat sounds to me like someone else's opinion of Medvedev's words. I follow what the Russians say and I do not recognise such maximalist terms. Perhaps they are Medvedev's personal opinion but are surely not state policy, else one can only conclude that it is Russia that has been duplicitous about negotiating and, IMO, it makes a complete nonsense of the way they have conducted the SMO.
Europe is just another captured Ukraine waiting to happen. Russia has been building up for them and dragging out the Ukraine war to bleed them out. Russia knows Europe is to be used as a battering ram against them and Europe is preparing itself for that mission. Do you think Russia is going to sit back and let Europe strike first when they feel they are ready?
Europe and the US have already struck first, Jack.
So yeah, Russia will sit back and let Europe strike first, as it already has.
Even the Baltic French fries don't fear Russia.
so depressing - the whole ME is on fire again tonight with something weird going on in Saudi Arabia. Also there's a rumour going around that Carney is Liquidating Canada so it can join the US - although Carney has given Trump the brush off in front of the Cameras and Von Der Lyin' has said that the EU would welcome Canada into the Union. Whoever is running the enemies of Russia are very sneaky and long-sighted. So What should Russia do ? Protect Iran and ignore the poodles.
So depressing… my reaction too after reading the article. Especially the lies from these politicians about Russia wanting to restore the USSR.
And coming to think of it, the Russians should actually do. Bring back all the countries of the warschau pact and emprison their leaders.
I have a heart, not a brain, Putin would argue😀
great comment. Thanks for that. I agree
Well, at least they could ask to be given their property back, Baltic lands, that they paid for after they defeated the Swedes.
What the hell...let's call it Wausau <sic> Business Insurance. There is a precedent here:
https://youtu.be/7K3ZidxWR-4?si=vyGohOCCEGSk_0IM
<<And coming to think of it, the Russians should actually do. Bring back all the countries of the warschau pact and emprison their leaders.>>
Maybe Russia is not as strong as we all think
Russia is stronger than we think, but you need an aggressive leadership like Medvedev. I still think Putin is a great peacetime leader, but he's not cut out for wartime leadership. Russia completely messed up its SMO from the very beginning by attacking in parade formation without weakening AFU defensive positions sufficiently to warrant attacking. This is all elementary stuff.
I hope Russia is stronger than we think. The world needs a stronger Russia. I hope the Russian General staff can do all this "elementary" stuff as you call it. We are all heartily sick of Zelensky and this entire Ukrainian mess.
Please Mr. Medvedev and Please President Putin, please make this stop
There is no easy way to make the Ukraine war stop aside from forcing AFU capitulation.
You misspelled "Cocainsky."
I tend to disagree. Wars have changed drastically in a way that was not foreseen. Look at the USA with it’s multi million dollar equipment, trying to fight 30.000 dollar drones. Look at the front where thousands of drones are in the air 24x7. You and I would not survive 15 minutes. It’s also impossible to level the country (the USA tried that in Vietnam, Israel did it in Gaza, but that is very small). In hindsight it all seems easy, but for instance in the beginning, the USA was fully on board. Going in big at that moment would have lead to a big reaction of NATO. Cause, Russia knows, you know, people commenting here now: we are dealing with psychopaths, we are dealing with the elite class. They really don’t give a fuck when millions die or when countries get destroyed (war is a racket remember, cause rebuilding also creates money plus debt).
Note: the difference between someone like Stalin and them: they have made the plebs believe they care. But they killed more people than Stalin did and of late I am more and more convinced that the USA financed both wars, so who is also responsible for the 60 million deaths in WW2? Who made massive profits from these wars?
Was Stalin the cause or was Stalin the effect?
Canadian forces attacked Juno beach, which had more firepower against it per square feet of attack than any of this drone stuff can deliver on an extended front in Ukraine. (now there's anti-drone technology at play)
By storming the beach, advancing non stop, Canadian Forces were the first to break the German lines by 3 km within a few hours. You don't remain static. You charge and overwhelm enemy forces and put them on the retreat and disorganized. You take big loses initially, but overall a whole lot less than just standing around as the Americans did. All I hear is excuses why Russia doesn't attack with a good plan of course. Hell, the Russians were masters of forward attacks at one time.
History!
“You take big loses”… exactly my point: others will die, not the elites in the back.
Big initial losses, Marl. but at less of an expense than if you moved slowly. How to win with minimal losses? Attack with speed,overun enemy positions, kill them while they're on the run. It's war, man, not Woodstock lovefest. lol All wars are bankers' wars, but that's another story, friend.
Others will die... but not Denis.....
he knows how to do it right... big man
You also destroy supply lines and communications in the rear.
It continues to blow my mind that there is still a bridge left standing in Ukraine.
Medvedev is even more of a wall kisser than Putin. You think he's tough because he's got the bad cop role. He was pretty wimpy when he had power.
Who do you recommend, Glasshopper?
"This is all elementary stuff."
from the armchair quarterback who has no repsonsibility to anybody and thinks he knows better than Putin and his staff what needs to be done - or CAN be done
Listen, tweedledumb: I've been commenting on this war here since it started, and you're just a newbie with nothing relevant to say. So stay in your lane, huh?
oooooooh sorry if I stepped on your seniority
volume of posts does not make up for lack of fucking knowledge
still an armchair quarterback with nothing to say of any value - including your punkass "substack"
How would you know, tweedledumb?
You have no clue what I said over five years.
And I have no SS, twiddledumb.
😂
well that is a small blessing, anyway
I don't think the Kremlin is happy about starting a WAR (not an SMO) that might once again cost 20,000,000+ Russian lives. And that's without WMD use.
WMD use now is what ensures no more Russians will die.
But the window to act is closing quickly.
Russia is the strongest country in military-technical terms.
But is extremely weak politically.
Remember that the USSR had reached the point where it was slightly stronger than the Americans, and that is exactly when it collapsed due to internal treason.
Modern Russia is a much diminished rump state of the USSR, with none of the traitors from back then punished for it.
Well im sure glad we deal with all our corruption so thoroughly and completely. Its almost as if there isnt actually an overlord class of Uber rich dictating everything, and milking us like aphids.
Im so glad its so much worse over there so we can forget about our own cesspool of corruption and disgusting elites that should be brought to justice for their disgusting problems.
So what, yet another one of Putin's empty threats and red lines. He will again turn one of his many cheeks.
After Iran depleted American standoff munitions, and proved their domestic systems can target and destroy jassm, airframes and tomahawk, the Russians should understand there is nothing to fear from Article 5 - except that Russians have a standard of living they do not want degraded.
If ever there was a time to sieze the strategic initiative, it is now.
the Iranian destruction of the US bases in the Middle East didnt trigger article 5, right? Why?
Iran was retaliating.