Actually, you don't know what Putin is going for since you don't listen to him. He has never voiced anything different. He has never varied his demands. He has never wavered. His message is clear, consistent and unmistakable.
No NATO. No foreign troops. Limited military. De-nazification. 4 regions + Crimea. Removal of sanctions. New European security architecture.
Feral, what do you think is the state of mind of Ukrainian citizens regarding this conflict?
I suspect that a good portion of Ukrainians voted for peace, which Zelensky promised, but then changed his doctrine after being elected. Next, Zelensky silenced all criticism of his policies by punishing citizens who opposed him. Surely, Ukrainians must see that they have been played. How do you see it?
"Total surrender" doesn't mean "Total Occupation". Russia is happy to leave a rump state of Western Ukraine intact, but militarily neutered. True: Russian troops will have to be stationed in West Ukraine to enforced neutrality and disarmament.
>He has never varied his demands. He has never wavered. His message is clear, consistent and unmistakable.
This is getting ridiculous.
Did he come out publicly in June 2024 and say "We will only negotiate once the Kiev regime pulls out to the administrative borders of all four regions"? Which is high treason against the Russian state on its own, but let's set that aside for a moment. Yes, he did.
Did what he come out and said the other day vary and waver relative to that demand? Oh, yes, it absolutely does.
What happened in between? The Ukro-NATO-Nazis invdaded Russia, slaughtered thousands, and if it wasn't for the help of comrade Kim, they would still be occupying Russian territory, while the border has not been protected in any significant way, the exact opposite in fact, because NATO also gave itself the right to fire missiles deep into pre-war Russia, to which there was no response whatsoever, let alone the kind of response it was an absolute must to follow, as a result of which Russian long-range air defense has been pushed around 100 km deeper into Russia, severely compromising the defense of the border. As we see from the hourly glide bomb strikes launched from right at the border, soon to be followed by Taurus missiles.
Speaking of which, those Taurus missiles are either already there or on the way.
If Putin does not carry out strategic nuclear strikes on Germany once the first Taurus missiles fly, ending the existence of that shitstain on the face of the planet once and forever, he has to be lynched in the middle of the Red Square.
But he won't be, because the unmentionable truth is that the Russian people have been very successfully pacified by a quarter century of "stability" and decadent consumerism, and very skillfully brainwashed to see Putin as its savior. Meanwhile that scumbag and his gang of merry oligarchs are leading them to the slaughter and finishing off what Gorbachev and Yeltsin started.
P.S. Combrade Kim has only a small fraction of the resources under Putin's disposal, but do you see anybody firing even a single bullet/shell/drone/missile into North Korean territory? You don't. While it's a free-for-all on Russia. How did that happen and why?
I give you that the demands of 2022 and Istanbul agreement was sufficient in 2022. But after more than 3 years of War and the involvment of West in direct War with Russia, ther should be another goal with this SMO…
And the SMO-ing bull-shit should have been thrown overboard long since. This is War.
Blood in the water. For me the early details age well. After Ukraine initialed an agreement in Turkey, to then cancel after BoJo laid down the law. Putin paraphrased; You will not get as good a deal in the future.
Name one Nato threat or promise that came true like Putin's have. Oh, ok, yeah Biden did promise to blow up Nord Stream, but for some reason, hasn't bragged about it the way he did after he got that corruption Prosecutor fired for investigating Burismo bribing Biden's son. Not even inspired enough to look up his name. Becky?
So yeah the sharks are circling and what do they haul out? Good ole sanctions. You know they ones that damage the attacker, more than the target. Was it the Patriot that set precedent and now it's our favorite MO?
Yes. The 2022 deal was about Donbass and Luhansk, all other issues as of today. So Ukraine risk to lose a chunk of Cherson and the Zaporitsjia oblast compared to 2022. And that after a very costly War for Russia. It is still a fantastic deal for Ukraine and a big mistake from Russia. But pragmatic Putin is more concerned over his western partners and being amenable.
NATO is in disarray after Trump entered the stage. The puppet Rutte had much talk and posturing in the first month but US is still leading NATO so he has gone more or less silent. NATO had nothing behind their Monday evening deadline. It is Thursday and havent noticed any sanctions floating up.
Lithuania had the good choice to declare Russian nukes as a non-problem and nothing to be scared about. That invitation should be gratified by Russia.
GM: "If Putin does not carry out strategic nuclear strikes on Germany once the first Taurus missiles fly, ending the existence of that shitstain on the face of the planet once and forever, he has to be lynched in the middle of the Red Square."
Your polished hyperbole is noted. You're becoming a bit of a bore, you know...
I could almost believe you're an AI creation - 75% fact and 25% twisted dissembling.
I'm wondering what you think you're bringing to the conversation. What, ultimately, is your point? It's unclear reading your voluminous outpourings what exactly you mean with your verbal circling of the drain approach to conversation. (We used to call it, "Baffle 'em with Boolshite!" when I was younger. What do you call it now?)
Have you correlated those demands with John Galtsky? He deny that they are any…
I agree with you. Those demands are the outspoken. But for a lasting peace the last one is most important. And that means no NATO in the future - otherwise the ”peace” will be short and Russia facing another in about 5-10 years. Russia cant trust either US or collective Europe so I cant imaging how a new security architecture would emerge that voth sides can agree on. With the leaders in EU future looks grim. And after Trump we can expect a surge of ”normalization” of US to the plan of LGTB-ing the whole western world.
Putin has never declared how a denazification would be executed. And no Oreshniks has landed in the bunkers of Bankova obliterating Yermak, Budanov, Umarovs &Co. It was a mistake to not take them out early. But on the other hand, I think plenty of Ukrainians now are convinced that the Ukrainian leadership has sacrificed them for Globalist interests. I cant imagine normal ukrainian are nazis.
Right. That last one says what is unspoken - NATO must disintegrate. Then Russia will negotiate with each European country separately in building his new security architecture. The EU is unlikely to prevent that as they will be breaking up as well. The US will become irrelevant.
"Putin has never declared how a denazification would be executed."
Not true. This was explicitly explained in 2022. He stated that it would require specific legislation outlawing Nazism, neo-Nazism and the promotion of Nazi ideology. I think some statues would come down, some streets would be renamed and some torch-lit marches would be banned. I would also imagine many would flee the country or end up in a Siberian gulag. They have repeatedly stated that they will bring to justice those who have committed atrocities band war crimes. They dedicate quite a lot of resources to investigations and documentation. Time will tell.
What they said in 2022 is irrelevant now. Russia has not occupied the whole of Ukraine and cant therefore bring the perpetrators to justice. Let us instead say Ukraine agree on the above mentioned by you. Allowing Russian to be spoken and forbidding marches with Swastikas in the Air will by no means de-nazify Ukraine. If you dont get the hands of the leadership and the Azovs it is all talk.
It ain't over yet, Mikey. Not by a long shot. This geopolitical game of thrones will go on for many years, even if an agreement were to be concluded tomorrow.
"Putin has never declared how a denazification would be executed. And no Oreshniks has landed in the bunkers of Bankova obliterating Yermak, Budanov, Umarovs &Co. It was a mistake to not take them out early."
Personally I have advocated decapitation long ago. But the Kremlin wants to play the media/optics game. It's a painful decision, but there are bigger games in play; namely, the BRICS++. Mushroom clouds over Kiev don't help the Global strategy.
I dont support GM:s Mushroom Clouds ( as I think you mean nukes). I wrote Oreshnik. It creates no Mushroom, just inceneration.
I dont either think XI, Modi, da Silva or for that matter hard-core African leaders are so squeamish that they will abandon BRICS to mourn Budanov, Yermak and Umerov. Contrary, it could signal to them that Putin is not firm enough against the Imperialists of the West…
No need for "de-Ukrainization". That was a Czarist policy that Lenin upended after the Revolution. Ukrainians are good people when they are not perverted by perverse ideology. Denazification, absolutely, with all these Bandera fascist types either hung or exiled (maybe to Mars).
Of course you can, depending on what you mean as "Ukrainian identity". In fact, the Ukraine of the Banderites was part of Poland, not the Ukrainian Soviet. It only became part of the USSR after Victory. Millions of Ukrainians fought and died fighting Hitler and relatively few joined with the SS.
What is especially perverse about the Banderites is that they deny their Slavic heritage and posit they are descended from the Vikings of the short-lived trading post/fortress in Kiev; thus, they are Aryans like their German idols. Before Independence, most Ukrainians thought of themselves as brother and sister Slavs with Russians, which is why this war is emotionally difficult for the Russians. In time, they will think so again.
Yes, indeed. Of note is that the OSS, then the CIA, kept the Ukrainian Nazi movement alive and used it to terrorize Soviet Ukraine until their defeat by the Soviets in the late 1950s. I am sure the CIA and MI6 kept their hand in as the Banderities were 'Johnny on the spot' in Maidan, well fitted out and armed. That kind of resource doesn't come from Galicia.
Odessa (used to be a Turkish port, before THAT, it was Lithuanian, Greek, Byzantine & etc. under several other names) became Russian & began building a Russian city about the same period as Washington DC became American and our government started constructing their planned capitol city.
But the people there are really from all over- lots of Greeks, Germans & other Baltics, residual inhabitants of every seafaring culture that reached the Black Sea (or navigated the rivers to the North). And even the ones who called themselves Ukrainian mostly spoke Russian until that became dangerous.
The only language the NEO-NATOs understand is that might is right.
A negotiated settlement by Russia when it could have defeated and forced Ukraine to surrender would be looked at as a sign of weakness and a lack of Russian resolve and will.
Russia doesn't have to take over Ukraine. It suffices to destroy and dismantle Ukraine militarily and politically. Russia could then set up advanced defensive lines to prepare for a possible NATO incursion at any time in the future. The line would ensure that any hostile forces would be destroyed as soon as they crossed the Ukrainian border with shock and awe, pre-determined bombings at the ready upon command.
There comes a time when the Russian excuses of being fooled by NATO's failure to abide by treaties become a matter of the utter incompetence of the Russian leadership, possibly more concerned about enriching themselves than doing what is necessary to terminate NATO's attempts to destroy it.
The Russian military is most capable in deep penetration attacks, sieging major cities, starving them into surrender, and mopping up retreating stragglers from their broken defensive lines. It doesn't need me to explain to them how to do it.
No country fears Russia until Russia gives them reason to.
It's high time for Russia to assert itself, and that means Total Ukrainian Surrender.
I would add the Total Surrender of Europe and the US. Than Putin and Xi we can have a real World Governance as discussed between these 2 Leaders recently.
You ever been to China ? It the West would ever try to Govern a population of 1.5 Billion we all woulndt see the next day light. A lot of misconception about a culture that has developed over 5000 Years. China looks increasingly like a nouveau capitalism, so does Vietnam. What they have a lot more in common is the support of their population. Just look of where we westerners are currently .... going downhill while the Chinese "commies" dragged their people out of poverty and starvation to make it the biggest industrial power on the planet within the past 5 decades.
Denis, you're going off the edge. Stick to sensible commentary and don't make up stuff where you don't know what you're talking about.
OK, China does not have 1.5 billion people living there. It has only about 1.45 billion people. But in terms of rounding, "1.5 billion" is not an unfair or deceptive characterization.
They're also not "oppressed." China is a very popular vacation destination for Russians. It's a huge country with absolutely spectacular geography and history and many extremely varied regions. I've only been there once but I have many friends here in Russia who have gone on repeated tourist trips there, to different regions, often spending weeks at a time travelling around.
I know people who have travelled in luxury there, staying at top hotels, and I have some working class friends who have gone on extreme budget trips where they travelled around the country on buses and public transport and stayed in cheapo hostels. A few of them are fanatics about making videos about everything they see and do, and I've watched many of those videos to get direct accounts from people who have travelled widely in China and who are not in any way, shape, or form biased. They're just fanatic travelers and interested in discovering all details about a very big, very diverse, and very interesting country.
The first thing about China everybody notes is how prosperous, clean, and futuristic it is. Nothing in the West compares to the hundreds of truly huge cities they have (over 200 with populations over a million) that are full of sparkling skyscrapers and intensely modern and well thought out infrastructure.
The second thing everybody comments on is the social cohesion, patriotism, and pride the Chinese have in their country. Talk of "oppression" is total nonsense. They *know* they have pulled themselves up out of poverty into being the world's most productive real economy, and they're very proud of that.
The third thing everybody comments about is their spectacular work ethic. Working conscientiously is something the Chinese seem to have built into them, and it is an indicator of Western failure and laziness that Westerners can't seem to imagine that people would naturally have a honest work ethic and want to do a good job without somebody beating them or threatening them. Maybe in the West, sure, but not in China, where people believe that working honestly and conscientiously is something that is an obvious part of making a better life for yourself and a better country for everyone.
You don't get that reported in the West for the same reason that basically 100% of what mass media tells you about life in Russia is a lie.
The West thinks it has conquered Russia and China by imposing on Western populations a regime of 24/7 propaganda for morons and canceling all truth about the scapegoats it blames for all the evil the West has done against itself and the world. But in reality by marinating its own people in lies and canceling all truth the only thing the West has done is ensure its own defeat by crippling the ability of its people and its governments to make decisions based on reality.
This is even worse than your usual ravings. I bet you do not know or understand a single word in Hanyu, never have read any Chinese novel, nor have - as you confess - ever have been to the country.
Interestingly, 75% of the Chinese consider democracy a good thing (more than US Americans), and, stunningly, as many opine that they are living in a democracy.
Now you may rave about the poor misguided victims of a totalitarian system. Unfortunately, there is no iron (or bamboo) curtain dividing China from the rest of the world. As tens of millions (est. 45-50m) of ethnic Chinese, "huaren", traditionally lived and live outside Zhongguo (the land of the middle), there are bonds and communication between them and the mainland, and have always been Just to mention, over 2 million Taiwanese permanently live and work in China, there are about 200k cross strait marriages.
Tens of millions of Chinese travel abroad, not few to Western countries, millions studied in the West. Originally, that was an escape route for the brightest and those wanting to escape to richer (and, originally, freeer) countries. With rising wealth and openness in China, and rising racism in the West, the US in particular, not few chose to remigrate. And today, Chinese universities are better, in summary, than Western ones, so studying abroad is more for the kids of the wealthy who cannot pass their standards (still, Chinese have the image of overachieving nerds in the West :) ) .
I strongly recommend the essays of Han Feizi in Asia Times for those who want to understand modern China.
To have a glimpse about modern Chinese thought and public debate, I recommend Zhao Tingyang All under Heaven: The Tianxia System for a Possible World Order. Berkeley: University of California Press. English Edition (2021). IISBN 978-0-520-32502-9 . The book was first published in China, Beijing 2005.
Zhao Tingyan is not exactly a marxist or communist, his book contains a lot of critical remarks about communism and marxism. He cites all relevant western philosophers from the Greek and Roman to modern times. Contrary to your predjudices, you will find a complete selection from Plato to Carl Schmitt (really!) in Hanyu in Chinese libraries, and can order them in every bookshop without risking a visit from the GongAn.
You must be butthurt that America just blinked in its "trade war" against China.
Even America's anti-China media mouthpieces like the Atlantic are admitting this defeat.
This is second only to the vaunted American Navy being chased out of the Red Sea (sans a couple of F/A-18 fighter jets) by the Yemenis, one of the poorest nations in the world.
What's next in the conga line of America's "victories"--Russia taking Odessa and Kiev on Trump's watch? Iran developing a nuclear weapon?
Mao Zedong laid the foundations of modern China, and Deng Xiaoping used the window of opportunity of the US eager exploiting the rift between USSR and PRC.
The US tried to exploit China as they have done with other less developped countries and met a "partner" using their ruses to develop the country beyond what original rigid planned economy allowed.
Now they are whining: "But, we did not expect you to develop, just wanted to make profits" LOL
what's wrong with Communists by the way? - they lifted 800 million out of poverty, mame me one capitalist who did the same without a communist knife on his chest?
Liked, because you're basically right (except when you make the beginner's mistake of underestimating Putin). However, I respectfully disagree with "Russia doesn't have to take over Ukraine. It suffices to destroy and dismantle Ukraine militarily and politically. "
No, I think Russia has to take over Ukraine and again make it what it has been for most of the last one thousand years, a Russian province.
The "dismantling militarily and politically" is an example of what hasn't worked with Poland, Germany and other adversaries for the last century or two. Many people here in Russia (I'm an American living in Russia) have moved to the opinion that the current troubles in Europe are a result of Russians failing to finish the job the last time around, in WW2. Now there is strong momentum building to finish the job this time.
That has to be annexation of *all* of Ukraine at a minimum, just like if you operate to cut out an aggressive cancer tumor you haven't finished the job if you leave part of the tumor in place. I write "at a minimum" because there's an increasing feeling you cannot leave countries that actively commit acts of war against Russia, like Poland, the Baltics, and now even Finland, intact as sovereign sanctuaries from which enemy regimes can commit acts of war against Russia.
John, I think Putin is the best politician in the world. I'm not underestimating anyone. I also agree with what you're saying here. I just didn't elaborate to infinity, trying to be brief. lol
>That has to be annexation of *all* of Ukraine at a minimum, just like if you operate to cut out an aggressive cancer tumor you haven't finished the job if you leave part of the tumor in place. I write "at a minimum" because there's an increasing feeling you cannot leave countries that actively commit acts of war against Russia, like Poland, the Baltics, and now even Finland, intact as sovereign sanctuaries from which enemy regimes can commit acts of war against Russia.
The oligarchs don't have the power they had in the 90's or that you think they do now. They've been well and truly cowed, long before the special op, and even those few uppity oligarchs who thought they could live in a parallel world out in the West got cowed when the West started seizing their assets.
What we have now in Russia is a very unified leadership, and that includes the extended leadership that encompasses business leaders like the heads of major banks, oil and gas companies and other companies who are part of the inner circle. Those people are fiercely patriotic and totally loyal to Russia. Regardless of how they may feel about Putin personally they are also very loyal to him and the others in the extended leadership.
What all of those people are unanimous about is prioritizing Russia's continued economic development and success (doing that, of course, also means keeping Russia's population safe from half of it being vaporized). Without economic development and success you don't have a sovereign state, not being able to afford the military you need to keep your sovereignty. They're very practical people and they're not intellectually lazy. Arguments like "Oh, that's too hard, let's just start a nuclear war now so everybody dies on our side and their side" don't cut it with them.
That's the crux of the disagreement, if there is one, between the very savvy, patriotic, and experienced people who run Russia and short attention span Internet folks: the people who know Russia best, knowing all of its strengths and weaknesses, believe they will get the win they want by using a "go slow, with patience" policy that allows Russia's continued economic development and success. They think that's better than killing half of Russia's population in a nuclear exchange, and they also think that's better than unnecessarily violent actions which would cripple Russia's economy (by cutting Russia off from key partners like China) while risking the annihilation of half of Russia's population.
It's the perspective of skilled, very smart, very experienced, and very successful adults.
In no way does the leadership have any conflict at all with the Russian population over that. On the contrary a strategy that delivers a geopolitical win, humbling the US and US goons in Europe, while maintaining spectacular economic development and success in Russia is exactly what the great majority of Russians want. The objectives of the population and the leadership are totally aligned, which is one reason why you see such overwhelming grass roots support for the leadership in Russia. It's delivered what people want: a better life accompanied by steady triumph of Russian arms.
I take a harder line on how this should all end in Ukraine than many people, including many Russians. But I see more and more Russians coming over to my point of view. I also can see why it makes sense for the leadership to play the West's game by saying "sure, come on down to Istanbul and we'll sit down to talk with you."
They can do that all day long because they know there's no way the US or their goons (either in the EU or in Ukraine) will agree to Russia's minimum demands: de-nazification and de-militarization of Ukraine, no attacks on Russian ethnicity or culture in Ukraine, no external forces of any kind either directly or indirectly (like by joining NATO) in Ukraine, and recognition of "the facts on the ground."
De-nazification means basically nobody in the existing government can continue, not at the federal, state, or local levels. I don't see how that can be accomplished without occupying all of Ukraine, but anything with even the slightest "de-nazification" credibility, far short of occupying all of Ukraine, isn't going to be accepted by the nazi goons sitting at the negotiation table. That's obvious to anybody with an IQ over 40. As Simplicius notes in this article, it's obvious to Vance. It's also obvious to every other person in the Trump administration that has retained contact with reality.
So we'll see how all this kabuki theater about negotiation plays out. I think it's going to be a long, drawn out process where Russia continues the de facto process of de-nazification by killing Kiev's troops. At some point when enough of them are killed and the collapse starts happening, then we'll see just how hard Russia's demands will be. For example, the less-noted condition to Russian demands that "in the future it will only be harder for you" will likely play a role as the Kiev regime collapses.
But until then, it's probably underestimating Putin and the leadership to claim that they'll give away the total victory they are well down the path of earning.
>The oligarchs don't have the power they had in the 90's or that you think they do now. They've been well and truly cowed,
I look at the facts on the ground.
Which are in no way consistent with the oligarchs being under control and the country being run in the interest of anyone else but the same parasitic scoundrels that took over in the late 1980s.
Nothing in the current situation makes any sense otherwise. The only hypothesis that explains all the facts, from Putin's multiple betrayals of the Donbass back in 2014-15, to the way he sabotaged the military in the beginning of the SMO, to the grand treason of Istanbul-1, to the grain and ammonia deals, to the refusal to fight the war seriously, to the current deal being made with the US while the US is bombing pre-war (!!!) Russia daily (!!!), etc. etc.
The only thing that explains it is oligarchs still being fully in control of Russia Inc. and Putin being the CEO diligently answering to the shareholders and the board of directors, but not really making the decisions in the interest of the state.
>What all of those people are unanimous about is prioritizing Russia's continued economic development and success
What success? Russia can barely build half a dozen Su-57s a year and a single-digit passenger airliners. The Soviet technological legacy was allowed to almost fully decay, and most of that happened under Putin.
>the disagreement, if there is one, between the very savvy, patriotic, and experienced people who run Russia and short attention span Internet folks
The "savvy, patriotic, and experienced people" got Russia to the point where it will have irreversibly lost the most productive part of its core historic territories while being reduced to a giant Syria/Libya/Iraq/Lebanon, i.e. a place anyone can bomb and invade whenever they feel like, with zero fear of consequences.
Meanwhile the "short attention span Internet folks" were screaming for this problem to be solved root and branch even before the Maidan. But the 5D-chess grandmasters had better ideas, and where are we now?
>It's the perspective of skilled, very smart, very experienced, and very successful adults.
Putin will go down as the second Nicholas II under the current trajectory, but right now there are no Bolsheviks waiting in the wings to save the country from the Tsar's decadent incompetence and split loyalties while the enemies are much more capable and will not stop in the tundra south of Arkhangelsk.
>De-nazification means basically nobody in the existing government can continue, not at the federal, state, or local levels. I don't see how that can be accomplished without occupying all of Ukraine
Missile and drones strikes can achieve it too, but all of the Nazis have been strictly off-limits in a (not)war started officially with the purpose of "de-Nazification". Make that make sense...
>Russia continues the de facto process of de-nazification by killing Kiev's troops
Most of those troops are press-ganged ethnic Russians who cannot surrender because if they try to do it drones will kill them from the Ukrainian side.
The volume of surrenders has sharply dropped since the early months of the war for that reason.
Putin has been effectively genociding the Russian population in Ukraine while leaving the Banderites mostly untouched.
You started with reasonable comments and now you've gone completely nuts again. Let's take apart a few of the nuttier comments:
">What all of those people are unanimous about is prioritizing Russia's continued economic development and success
What success? Russia can barely build half a dozen Su-57s a year and a single-digit passenger airliners. The Soviet technological legacy was allowed to almost fully decay, and most of that happened under Putin."
What success? Where have you been? Under a rock? Take a drive through Moscow City Center and see a city from the future.
Success is fantastic quality of life, with rising real incomes, steadily improving civic infrastructure like outstanding mass transit, continuously improving health care, better schools, dramatically healthier and longer living people, and outstanding innovations in industry and consumer products. The cities have become fantastic places to live with wonderful culture, art, great cafes and restaurants and stores and shopping malls full of the world's products.
Your Su-57 and "passenger airliner" claims are a red herring.
From November 2023 to the end of 2025 Russia's production numbers are 63 passenger airliners, an average of 20 per year, with 34 Sukhoi SuperJet 100s, a truly outstanding regional airliner that I've flown on many times, 18 MC-21's and 11 Tu-214s. Those numbers are low given the run rate of 30 Sukhoi SuperJet 100's per year up to 2023 because of the switchover to the new "Sukhoi Superjet New" that has just started production in 2025.
Given the backlog of orders for the SuperJet New and the dramatically scaled up production facilities there's no doubt they'll crush the old 30 per year run rate. The difference between the 100 and the New is that the New has near-zero reliance on any foreign components. The original SuperJet 100 had slightly over 10% US components a consequence of the highly globalized logistics chain that goes into any airliner, while the 100R had less than 10%. Before switching over to 100 New production there were 230 SuperJet 100's built.
But your argument is complete fakery as the world's largest real economy, China, serving over 1.4 billion Chinese, only produces two of its own airliners, the Comac C909 with a total of 176 built since 2017 and the Comac C919 with only 18 units built since 2022. Yet who in their right minds would try to use such statistics to claim China has not had phenomenal economic success in the last 20 years?
Russia, like China, also was buying Airbuses and Boeings and Embraer aircraft. Since the US and EU went sanctions crazy, Russia has decided to restart its own indigenous airliner production with Sukhoi, MC-21, and Tupolev 214's, and also restarting production of a modernized wide-body Ilyushin 96. China is doing the same thing. In both cases the countries are planning for the future.
Russia is planning on completely throwing Western vendors out when the current fleet (an extremely new fleet, like China's) ages in the 2030's. To do that Russia has to grow indigenous production and that doesn't happen overnight. China is doing the same thing, for example, planning on expanding Comac C919 production to 50 aircraft per year next year.
Russia doesn't particularly need Su-57's (it's far more advanced than what is needed either in Ukraine or to defeat NATO) so all the production capacity is going into aircraft that it does need, like the Su-3x series. Those are modernized and new variations that build on many years of Su-27 experience, to create outstanding aircraft that are very inexpensive to build while being rock-solid reliable and implacably lethal.
But Russia still built six Su-57s in 2022, 12 in 2023, 20+ in 2024 and about the same in 2025. Those numbers are way overkill for what Russia needs. They're being built to generate experience for the next generation, future fighter project. That future fighter project is also in doubt, not because of any lack of ability to make it but because Russia has made so much progress so fast with military AI that it looks like manned fighters are a thing of the past.
This is simply wrong: "The Soviet technological legacy was allowed to almost fully decay, and most of that happened under Putin."
Russia in 2025 has far and away better technology than the Soviet Union ever did. The USSR was very good at basics, but Russia is much better at applying high tech to military needs and it is far more agile.
">the disagreement, if there is one, between the very savvy, patriotic, and experienced people who run Russia and short attention span Internet folks
The "savvy, patriotic, and experienced people" got Russia to the point where it will have irreversibly lost the most productive part of its core historic territories while being reduced to a giant Syria/Libya/Iraq/Lebanon, i.e. a place anyone can bomb and invade whenever they feel like, with zero fear of consequences."
That's simply insane. Russia's most productive part of its core historic territories are Russia itself. Ukraine was good for agriculture, but a black hole for money sent from Russia. Russian agriculture has grown to where Russia is the world's largest food exporter. There is nothing remotely comparable between Russia today and "Syria/Libya/Iraq/Lebanon" and for you to write that guarantees you will lose all credibility with anybody who has an IQ over 40. Nobody can bomb or invade Russia whenever they feel like it, with zero consequences. Kiev, for example, lost 76,000 men it could not afford and thousands of armored vehicles just invading a tiny part of Russia. The price Kiev will pay for trying that is losing the war.
You're also lying when you talk about "bombing" Russia. Nobody is "bombing" Russia. What's going on are insignificant drone attacks that 99.99% of the country doesn't even notice. I was at a local mall this past Sunday to see a new blockbuster movie, "Kraken," and in that entire, huge mall packed with people if you started ranting about anybody "bombing Russia" you'd have been laughed at for your idiotic talk.
"but all of the Nazis have been strictly off-limits in a (not)war started officially with the purpose of "de-Nazification"."
Ah, that's a lie. Over 700,000 of the nazis are now dead. A good example is how the original, hard core of the Azov Battalion, over 40,000 men, were killed in Mariupol.
"Most of those troops are press-ganged ethnic Russians who cannot surrender because if they try to do it drones will kill them from the Ukrainian side.
The volume of surrenders has sharply dropped since the early months of the war for that reasons."
[An edit: comparing the volume of surrenders in recent months to the "early months" of the war is lying with statistics, because the situations are dramatically different. In February and March of 2022 the Kiev regime had an army of 500,000 men, the largest and best equipped in Europe thanks to the US and US stooges. When Russia's ultimatums were blown off and Russia invaded, much of that army melted away with well over 100,000 men (by some accounts 200,000 men) simply walking off and not returning. They didn't really "surrender" in the classic sense. They just changed into civilian clothes and went home. Many of them also emigrated to Russia, part of the over five million former Ukrainians who have emigrated to Russia since 2014. There were also huge surrenders as those men at the front who did not want to support the nazi regime or to fight Russia threw down their arms and went over to the Russian side. But that's a one-time rebalancing of the books. The "surrenders" that honest analysts have been discussing for the last three years are those of active troops who as a result of a variety of factors have decided they don't want to die for the Kiev regime. My comments below are about those surrenders.]
Not true. Surrenders have dramatically increased, and it's the press-ganged ethnic Russians who are the first to surrender. For that matter, the press-ganging has not remotely kept up with needs. The de-nazification through death process has been very successful because forced mobilization has been a relatively new process, with ethnic Russians self-selecting out of it in 2022, 2023 and most of 2024 by a) leaving Ukraine, or b) hiding or otherwise not responding to mobilizaiton orders. That means the bulk of the 700,000 killed especially in those years and especially in 2022 and 2023 were gung-ho nazis and nazi-sympathizers who went willingly into the fight.
Kiev has also grown dependent on mercenaries, which have been steadily wiped out, as well as NATO troops contributed primarily by Poland and Romania, which are also part of the de-nazification by death phenonemon as fellow-travellers of the Kiev regime.
You ignorant jackass. You always go completely off the rails when someone disagrees with you. Your Putin hatred so completely clouds your discourse that you essentially nullify even what few comments that you make that are correct. I'm guessing that you are either on sedatives or some strong medication to keep your different personalities from imploding. Get a life, psycho.
Purposes of the SMO: demilitarisation & deNazification. The first has to be accomplished in full before the second can be achieved. Strategically Odessa, city and oblast, is part of this. Note that Putin has gone beyond the SMO to "war". Not a slip of the tongue.
"Note that Putin has gone beyond the SMO to "war". Not a slip of the tongue." No, but it's not something to read a lot into either.
Putin, like most Russians, frequently refers to what's going on in Ukraine as "war." That it is, of course. But it doesn't rise either in his mind or in the mind of Russians to "War" with a capital W. It's just not that big. It really is a special military operation, because it is highly limited fighting. If it was a "War" you'd have all Russia mobilized and not just a 1.3 million man army (growing to 1.5 million) but a ten million man army and there would be no more Baltics, Finland or Kiev regime, and there would be massive destruction in *all* of the EU states that committed acts of war on Russia. That's what Russians think of when they think of War.
I disagree with your example of Germany as not being "successfully dismantled military and politically". Some recent defense minister saw to it that the Bundeswehr was completely crippled and got rewarded handsomely.
Given the actions and statements of the German government that went completely against their population and they being adamant that the Russians destroyed the NordStream pipeline regardless of the facts makes it clear that the German government is the mouthpiece of the occupying powers that rule there for 80 years already.
If the AfD political party would make any difference or could be controlled opposition like other political parties in other EU countries remains to be seen.
The german electoral system will be inconsequential by the end of this year.. too much rampant fraud and hypocrisy that even the blind normie can tell something is quite 'off'. The incoming chancellor said a whole bunch of things to get elected, and then prompted did a 180... greatly expanding the debt too. There is a generational trauma about the inflation debt spiral in that society, s the current elite control system is on its last legs with zero legitimacy left.
I am fairly skeptical about the Bundeswehr incompetence. Certainly, like all Western armies, they have the troubles of an overly expensive and untested heavy equipment with the ashamable performance of Leopard, PzH, Gepard, Iris etc. This is why NATO and US cannot win a war against Russia or China, not even against the Houthis.
But still, the Bundeswehr cadre of higher and middle officers is competent and well trained, they have a couple of elite units. It would be utterly foolish to underestimate them.
I hope a lot that this 800m Euro armament program will end in a blunder. Certainly, it will drive up equipment prices so much will go up in smoke. But not all.
Rational folks like you and I with even half a brain can see and understand that. The fact that most of the western sheeple don't, just shows how utterly stupid they've become. I fully understand that after all the blood and sacrifice in this SMO, the Russians will make the west pay extremely dearly for quite a while. The folks who think that once normal relations resume and Russia will quickly supply Germany cheap gas again - are in la-lal land. That ship has sailed.
Russia doesn't have to literally occupy W. Ukraine. They would be embroiled in and endless low-level insurgency, worse than USSR occupation of E. Europe.
Cooperative administrators in Kiev could do the job, with Russian bases on the Belarus and Transnistria borders to enforce neutrality and demilitarization with intense monitoring and periodic military strikes. Odessa must be in Russian hands for this to work.
The one thing that all successful insurgencies have in common is a young population. The median age in Ukraine is over 40, and that from before the war started.
2. The Afghan war actually went better for the Soviets than conventional wisdom would have it. Without bothering to go into a long tangent, the Najibullah government survived Soviet withdrawal and only collapsed when it no longer had subsidized fuel.
"[T]here's an increasing feeling you cannot leave countries that actively commit acts of war against Russia, like Poland, the Baltics, and now even Finland, intact as sovereign sanctuaries from which enemy regimes can commit acts of war against Russia."
What do you mean, precisely, about Russia not leaving these countries (Poland, the Baltics, Finland) 'intact'?
How does Russia do that?
And is there a feeling that these countries have 'actively' committed 'acts of war against Russia'?
Or do you mean if they do commit acts of war...in the future?
"What do you mean, precisely, about Russia not leaving these countries (Poland, the Baltics, Finland) 'intact'?"
By not leaving them 'intact as sovereign sanctuaries,' which is the phrasing I used. In other words, ending their existence as sovereign entities. Instead of being "countries" they would revert to their former status as provinces, territories, colonies, depopulated wastelands, whatever.
"How does Russia do that?"
By first winning the war against them that they started with Russia. Given the delusional nature of their leaderships and the active brainwashing of their populations they have undertaken with such intensity, that's going to be a very hot war for them, as they show no signs of capitulation. That will vary between the different countries.
The Finns are likely to be more sensible once their government and military is destroyed. The Baltics don't really matter given their rabidly anti-Russian populations are so tiny, less than just one of the districts of the city of Moscow. The Poles will ensure what used to be their country will be transformed into a European version of Gaza, as they've specialized in doing every hundred years or so.
All that will start with removing the UK and France as nuclear powers, surprisingly easy to do given the basically fake nature of their "deterrent". In the case of the Brits it's just a single submarine on patrol, which takes them months to get ready. Kill that when it is arriving or leaving port, eliminating Faslane and the other subs and there's literally no more UK strategic deterrent. The only nukes the Brits have are warheads for Trident missiles launched by their subs. They can't afford maintaining other nukes so they put all their eggs into a single Trident basket.
France is even easier, as they can no longer afford to keep even a single sub on patrol. Months go by where all of the French strategic subs are in port. Those are easily removed in a matter of minutes (literally, less than ten minutes) with hypersonics. France's only other nuclear "deterrent" is (don't laugh... they think people are stupid enough to believe them) a motley collection of Raphael fighter bombers conveniently concentrated in two or three bases or on the single French carrier that spends all of its time in refit in Toulon. Those also are easy to eliminate in a matter of minutes with suborbital hypersonics.
Other NATO nukes are in a tiny handful of bases, also easy to eliminate in a matter of minutes. Clear the decks of those and then begin demilitarizing and (let's misuse the term to extend it to nazi collaborators) de-nazifying the immediate belligerents on Russia's borders: Poland, the Baltics, and Finland. Very low yield airbursts would do a first rate job of wiping out their militaries with far fewer civilian collateral casualties than is typical for US military actions.
"And is there a feeling that these countries have 'actively' committed 'acts of war against Russia'?"
Of course. When a country's military actively participates in the killing of Russian civilians and Russian soldiers, that's an act of war. When a country arms and financially supports entities that kill Russian civilians and Russian soldiers, that's an act of war. When a country embargos or takes other measures to destroy Russia's economy that's an act of war. When a country seizes or harasses Russian ships that's an act of war (if you're an American you should know that was the US basis for declaring war on England in 1812). Heck, when a country seizes 350+ billion of Russia's money that's an act of war, and when a country seizes Russian diplomatic properties that's an act of war. Insulting a country or actively propagandizing against a country has for millennia been an act of war. For that matter, when a country has taken active military measures, like moving hostile offensive weapons into position to attack a country, that's an act of war. When a country joins a hostile military alliance that is preparing offensive war against a country, that too is an act of war. And then with NATO there's the effect of Article 5, which means that "an attack by any NATO member is an attack by all NATO members". Poland, the Baltics, and Finland have all committed the above acts of war, and even if they did not directly participate in other acts of war, like the US's destruction of Nordstream pipelines, by joining NATO they are participants in the attack.
Seriously, what planet are you from where they think that you can actively participate in and assist in the killing of Russian civilians and soldiers and that's not an act of war?
There is extremely strong feeling building in Russia that "this must be finished" and by that they don't just mean finishing off the nazis in Ukraine. So far, I grant, it is a minority opinion that peace requires setting a precedent that committing an act of war against Russia means you lose your foul country, at least in the case of those countries that, by direct proximity, pose an immediate threat to Russia. But the percent of the population that holds that opinion is growing, and I think sometime within 2025 it may become the majority opinion.
Thanks, seriously, for the explanation. It explains, to some extent, I guess, Russia's ongoing military build up. But I can't help but think any of the actions you describe against Poland, the Baltics, or Finland, let alone Britain and France, would provoke a full blown NATO response and, presto, WWIII.
"It explains, to some extent, I guess, Russia's ongoing military build up."
I don't think that's the explanation. That a minority of the population (a growing but still to date a small minority) believes punching down once and for all the ancient enemy (Poland), the vicious crazies in the Baltic, and the untrustworthy Finns is very, very far from the leadership in Russia thinking that's necessary. And even so the minority view isn't necessary to explain Russia's perfectly logical reaction to military threats from NATO.
Consider: the US has attempted, yet again, to ring Russia with intermediate range nuclear weapons and with offensive military bases. NATO is actively fighting a war against Russia, with NATO personnel participating in the killing of Russian civilians and Russian military personnel. NATO's three nuclear powers are directly participating in that. Russia would have to be insane to ignore the reality that it is at war with NATO.
So sure, Russia has to build up its military. It's getting ready for a hot fight with NATO given NATO's repeated determination to "inflict a strategic defeat on Russia" and the often-repeated NATO objectives of destroying Russia's economy and dismembering Russia into smaller states. Those are often cloaked in a propaganda for morons narrative fed to Western audiences about "deterring Russian aggression," but Russia knows it wasn't the aggressive party in Ukraine.
The US and NATO were, doing a regime change operation in Ukraine in 2004 and then again with great violence in 2014. Russia intervened on the eve of the US's planned invasion of Donbass (striking just hours before the invasion was to launch), where the US and NATO had positioned 130,000 of Kiev's most fanatic nationalist troops to invade and once and for all ethnically cleanse Donbass. That was after they had killed 14,000 ethnic Russians in Donbass in the preceding years, so, sure, you bet, Russia took that invasion very seriously.
"I can't help but think any of the actions you describe against Poland, the Baltics, or Finland, let alone Britain and France, would provoke a full blown NATO response and, presto, WWIII."
NATO has laughably insufficient conventional "response" capability. All it has is a nuclear threat from the US, the UK and France. The scenario I outlined takes that off the table right at the outset. Neither the US nor NATO will have any nukes left in Europe with which they could attack Russia. The only nuclear response would have to be a strategic US response.
As for conventional NATO strength, that, too would be eliminated in the scenario I outlined by tactical nuclear strikes on NATO forces poised to invade Kaliningrad and the main part of Russia. Eliminating Poland's military as well as NATO bases that threaten Russia, like the beefed-up airbases in Poland, the AEGIS ashore base near the Baltic Sea, and so on, doesn't take a lot of ordnance with 10kt to 100kt airbursts doing the work. Anybody who thinks the Germans or Swedes are going to saddle up the handful of troops they have for a conventional assault on Russia after that is nuts.
As for a US strategic nuclear strike on Russia the belief among more and more Russians is that the US will not guarantee the death of over 300 million Americans and the extinction of the United States as a country and a culture as a response to Russia removing the ability of the UK, France, and NATO to strike Russian cities with nuclear weapons. So long as Russia doesn't strike US cities in the homeland, the reality, so it is believed, is that the US won't give a hoot about the UK and France being removed as nuclear powers and the US will not strike the Russian homeland with nuclear weapons.
That's the dividing line between a WWIII that teaches Europe not to fuck with Russia as they've been doing, and total destruction of the United States in a full power WW3. Nobody in the US, of course, gives a hoot if every last Russian was incinerated in WW3, but they care about themselves and they know perfectly well that if they strike Russia, Russia will strike the US and there's not a damn thing the US can do to stop that strike.
The US, at least under Trump, also knows that a US nuclear strike on Russia that Russia will answer with a nuclear strike on the US is bound to escalate into a maximum exchange that eradicates the US. They also know that if Russia goes for denuclearization strikes in Europe and then insists on demilitarization of Europe, WW3 can stop right there.
The US doesn't really give a hoot about Europe either, or at least not enough to commit suicide. That's not the US's style. Instead, throwing Europe under the bus is more like the US's style.
That's also the lesson the US will learn, that having a nuclear arsenal doesn't mean you can use it against another nuclear power without limitations. You can only use it if you destroy, or at least denuclearize, that other nuclear power. That could be yet another lesson coming out of the Ukraine conflict.
The world has already seen how US/NATO wonder weapons are often useless, for example, how hyper-expensive NATO tanks on a battlefield saturated by drones aren't really good for anything but occasional use as static, second rate tube artillery.
Another lesson could be that building a hyper-expensive nuclear arsenal that is not a truly hermetic deterrent puts you in danger, not your much larger and more sophisticated nuclear adversary. It's plain dangerous to threaten Russia with nuclear weapons if all you have is a single sub that can be easily killed. Russia is almost obliged to kill that sub and denuclearize you. Seriously, if you have the technical means to remove the threat, why allow a deranged power that threatens you with vicious stupidity to have nuclear weapons?
The British ballistic sub base at Faslane is in a fjord where it can be destroyed without harm to any big population center. The British storage depot for Trident warheads is in an adjacent fjord in Coulport, also far away from significant population. The joint UK/US nuke storage facility in Lakenheath is close to the village of Lakenheath, but that's not a big city.
The French put their ballistic sub base across the bay from Brest, a big population center. But even so a 300 kiloton airburst to take out France's subs would not level Brest and would only cause light damage, blowing out windows, in Brest. To arm their Raphael fighter bombers they put their main nuclear weapons storage facility near Istres, a medium sized city which would be destroyed, but major population centers like Aix-en-Provence and Marseille would be completely untouched. A strike on the carrier in the naval base near Toulon could use a relatively small nuke, ten kilotons, to leave the city of Toulon itself undamaged.
Other US/NATO nuclear weapons depots in Europe aren't near big population centers. Even Ramstein air base is in a rural area. No need to strike Berlin or downtown Frankfurt (which is safely far away from Frankfurt airport).
Just saying, that whereas a "military only" strike by the US on the Russian homeland or by Russia on the US homeland is a myth, a denuclearization-only strike by Russia on the UK, France, and nuclear weapons forces in Europe is a perfectly feasible reality.
If Russia limited the direct, hot war to immediate threats right on its borders (Poland, the Baltics, and Finland), yes, the US would learn its nuclear arsenal would be good only for committing suicide.
The bottom line is there is a big difference between either the US or Russia striking a third rate nuclear power and them striking each other. None of Russia's allies have attacked the US, so there aren't any third rate nuclear powers aligned with Russia that the US could strike. But the US's allies have attacked Russia, and Russia can strike them.
Especially after the experience in Ukraine, I don't think anybody who knows the US believes the US will commit suicide to save a bunch of countries that have been killing Russians.
Indeed. They know this as well. The collective west is completely ignorant of the history and the reasons for the SMO or they are purposely (stupidly) ignoring it. Western leaders are a collective group of clowns... Chip
When will the Russian military find the courage to coup these traitors?
How can you:
1) Leave most of Ukraine to the Nazis. Which is what the current trajectory is shaping up to be.
2) Talk shit about how Zelensky is illegitimate, and demand that a precondition for negotiations is Ukro-NATO-Nazi withdrawal from Kherson, Zaporozhye and Slavyansk/Kramatorsk, then come out and offer immediate negotiations "with no preconditions" directly with the nacrofuhrer?
3) Suddenly become friends with the Americans at the same time while they are firing missiles into your cities (there was yet another HIMARS strike on Rylsk just yesterday)?
Who in their right mind does these things if he is sincerely working for the good of Russia?
Take these traitorous pieces of shit out and put someone in who will go to war for real.
You need to get some facts straight if you want your low energy trolling to gain any traction. The preconditions mentioned above were for a ceasefire, not negotiations. Russia's leadership has widespread support, so calling for its ouster makes you anti-Russian, a Ukrainian basically.
Here, in the US, we barely escaped bill H. R. 867 by which Americans would be fined up to $300,000, criminal penalties as high as $1 million or 20 years in prison for boycotting the actions of ISRAEL! Murders get less severe penalties!
The people suffering a loss of free speech are those supporting Palestine.
Had you referenced them I would have agreed with you.
But you went for the low hanging fruit. Trannies and immigrants get shit from the press on a daily basis. It's entirely possible to say pretty much anything about them.
They are convenient scapegoats, just don't threaten the Establishment and you'll be fine.
Not true, John. Many have lost their jobs over criticising immigrants, LGBT/whatever and zionists. And the government allowed that. This to me is a suppression of free speech by proxy.
Meanwhile there is that inconvenient fact that nobody wants to acknowledge that Putin has gone much harder after the Russian patriots than he has ever fought against the Ukrainian, let alone the Western Nazis.
Russian patriots are in jail, Ukro-Nazis roam freely, and Western Nazis come to visit them and do some lines of coke together whenever they feel like, and nobody is touching them in any way.
Wrong. If you criticise such items, expect to get your collar felt right in your front room, by the local plod. However, get burgled, mugged, car stolen and you won't see a single policeman.
There is not free speech in the UK as it currently stands.
In case you missed Tucker's interview with Conor McGregor, a prospective presidential candidate in Ireland. <<link>>
For a guy who has taken a lot of blows to the head...he's pretty articulate in describing the immigrant problem there and by extension the rest of invaded Europe. He states that the political system there is so rigged that even being allowed in any race would be verboten. There's a TON of info in this interview.
If you read Russian military blogs, there is a lot of criticism of military conduct, sometimes rational criticism, but not seldom foolish and arrogant armchair generalship, even blaming military and political leadership of incompetence and even treason. I am not aware that dva mayora, rybar, andrey medvedyev, poddubny or the like have been threatened, prosecuted, or fined, not to mention arrested.
That's factually incorrect. You can criticize, and mil bloggers do it all the time, what you can't do is to lie. Frankly, this law is so leaky and botched, that some mil bloggers, bonafide 5th columnists, like Sladkov, Fighterbomber etc can lie about SMO but doing it so craftly that they can't be even prosecuted.
"No preconditions" is meant they will not accept any preconditions from the Collective West, such as immediate 30-days ceasefire and whatnot.
Who is leaving most of the Ukraine to Zio-Banderites? Now the convo is in the realm of Novorossia+. Probably Kiev will reunite as well, treatment of priests and Pechersk Lavra will not be forgotten. Rump Ukraine (if it remains) will be pro-rus and other banderite parts will reunite with other countries. Can't wait for Poles to whine about Banderites then.
Nobody is friend with Americans, they are just professional diplomats.
Even if the military were to execute a coup today, you would find that the business of actually governing Russia, of finding people who are competent and loyal (to the military) to run key positions, would make the task impossible.
People…after 3 years of trying to change GM’s mind and yet it keeps doubling down on being wrong why don’t you just stop replying to it? No matter what you say it comes back with the same talking points so just quit feeding it. Let it post into space instead and stop wasting your time.
Vance is right - Russia is asking too much since they ask for territory they have not taken yet. So Russia's response is to proceed to take that territory.
"gain devastated lands", form the economic perspective, not a bad idea. The factories and mines in the Donbass are old, now is the opportunity to bring them up to modern standards. The same for the housing. Russia has growing reserves that it can hardly invest, as the West has gone mad on sanctions. The soldiers will leave the army and find well payed jobs in construction, and all without printing money.
So, theoretically when the Russians actually have secured all (nearly all is sufficient probably) of those regions, and for the West it is clear the AFU just can't do anything against their advances then, maybe then for the West and Ukr there is the actual interest in stopping by giving in to Russias demands.
Because then they would have drawn this conflict out as much as they could with the current Russian demands, from which they know the Russians won't back down. So, they need to settle just right before Russia might increase its demands.
>when the Russians actually have secured all (nearly all is sufficient probably) of those regions
>giving in to Russias demands
Please note that the "Russian demand for the four regions" is nothing else but a tacit admission of the complete failure of the SMO and in effect Putin begging for surrender terms.
Why is nobody asking the obvious question "why those four regions and were they what the SMO was about?".
The answer should be obvious -- it is those four regions because they are the only territories that were securely captured and then not given up without a fight. For half of that we have to thank the brave people of the Donbass, who picked up arms back in 2014, for the rest the thin Ukrainian defenses in Kherson and Zaporozhye in February 2022.
But had Russia managed to take Nikolaev and then Odessa and had Putin not committed grand treason in Istanbul, but pushed just a bit harder instead on the battlefield it would be several more regions that were annexed (Odessa, Nikolaev, Chernigov and Sumy, and a big part of Kharkov, even if without the city itself).
The "four oblasts" is just how the battlefield dice rolled thanks to Putin's incompetence, him being the errand boy for the Russian oligarchy, and the Russian oligarchy's traitorous position relative to the core interests of the Russian state, all which combined doomed the early war effort and have been kneecapping it ever since.
I think Putin does great. Not because I think he maximized the territory, idk but I am quite willing to admit that you are right, that there were more aggressive ways to secure a lot more of those regions that actually better should be with Russia (Because the people there want it).
However, what he did great was, by basically bending over backwards since 2014 (and earlier actually), being super passive (no increase in military production, conscription etc until the very last moment) he won the favor of the world. Also from a lot of people like me, sitting in the West. Had he been a lot more aggressive I think it at least very likely, that the West's efforts to isolate Russia might have been a lot easier and maybe actually fatal for Russia's economy.
So, I am no clairvoyant, so maybe the militarily more aggressive route might have worked as well with still gaining the necessary favor of the world. However, I think playing it save was the right choice. The West is checkmate now and actually never stood a chance. The cost for that was battle field performance.
LOL "Vance is right"...Just uttering that some idiot in USA is right about something, is enough to nullify this comment. No, Vance is not right. USA is the "root cause of this conflict" and has no say in what Russia can or cannot do. And since Russia is winning and humiliating USA and its proxies / vassals in Ukraine, both militarily and economically, Russia decides what it wants, when it wants it.
The supremacist / fascist, clear nazi nature of USA and its european vassals and proxies like Ukraine, does not allow them to take the "humble pie" that the russians are offering them. Russia can take the whole of Ukraine if it decides to do so and the west's defeat will be much greater, when compared to what it will be if Russia's current proposal is accepted. Vance and his idiot boss Donald Trump, the "peacemaker" warmongers, need to shut up and stay in their place of the largest terrorist organization in the world, because that's the only thing they can do and whatever they say, is irrelevant and meaningless. Their words and signatures are worth less than a piece of sh*t.
Indeed. I did not recognize any sarcasm there, because to be fair to myself, I read a lot of comments and there are a lot of people that do say things like that...without sarcasm! That the "USA person, the root cause of all wars, all terrorism, all evil in the world, is right about something..."
"Sure," says Putin, "We'd love to have a ceasefire with Ukraine! Unfortunately, the DPRK troops are enjoying themselves too much, and have asked us to continue instead. So sorry".
What Ukraine really wants/needs is a massive injection of NATO troops on the ground. Instead we are having the same old, same old disinterring of some wonder weapon or other that old europe can lob at Russia from an increasingly imaginary safe distance.
Nato troops are probably not as good as the seasoned Ukrainian forces now, and would struggle with conventional NATO doctrine in the current situation. No air cover, no drone training, and highly limited materiel.
And they'd be top priority for another Oreshnik test.
What Zelensky is really praying for is NATO's Nukes.
Not to mention a strong disinclination to die for the Ukrainian cause, exceeded only by the disinclination of Americans to go in and die for this cause- whatever this cause might be actually be.
When the war began, some Americans I know had such "strong feelings" about Ukraine, so I was just offering them a $5 bet if they could find Ukraine on the map at the first attempt. None did.
I kept explaining to Americans from day one: There are only two possible outcomes for this war, a Russian victory or a nuclear war. They were looking at me like the one who had never seen a White Man before. Most Americans are simply detached from the reality. They cannot comprehend the changes that took place globally in the last few decades. The DeepState structure and the controlled media have such a hold on the collective American mind that they actually have the option to herd them into the middle of a nuclear conflict where they have nothing to win.
If Zelensky is praying for something than it is a „personal exit“. He dose not give a shi… about this whole affair. But he took the role of his life which will probably cost his life.
And it is not the Russians he is afraid of.
The „patriotic bodybuilders“ and their puppet masters in London and Langley are blocking his way to „lambada beats and bikinis.“
‘What Ukraine really wants/needs is a massive injection of NATO troops on the ground.’
It is unlikely that NATO/US troops can end this conflict by walking into Ukraine. There are three nations that desperately will keep helping Russia from going under in this conflict: China, Iran and North Korea. In their view, if Russia is steamrolled they are next and they had already proven that they are willing to stand up. Remember, between 1950 and 1958 Mao sent a total of 3 million Chinese soldiers to participate in the Korean conflict and this was just a short time after the creation of the Chinese communist state, they had zero nuclear arms at the time. As far as the world and China understood the situation the US could have burned with nukes every large Chinese group concentration. The Chinese did it because they wanted to avoid the US Army on their North Korean border section. The writing is already on the wall that China is the next target and it would be naïve to think that the CCP will not mine an opportunity to beat America’s proxy war in Ukraine.
I think the support of China et al is a tad more positive than a fear of 'being next'.
Trump has reminded anyone who needed reminded, just what being dominated by the US means. And it is luridly awful.
Russia must win to put the western megalomaniac lunatics back inside their own asylum. Jung said that in roughly each new generation a force surfaces in the world to remind everyone what THE LAW really means. This is Russia's part in this wider unfolding of the Jungian great collective mind. It is just one of Goethe's energetic facts.
The US general in charge (I forget the piece of shit's name) of the Korean theatre did threaten China with nukes when the inept US forces were surrounded.
Think Douglas MacArthur. Dugout Doug ignored orders to stop his advance, then drove towards the Chinese border without establishing required logistics deliberately putting his troops in an untenable position where an expansion of the war to "save them" could be demanded from politicians wishing to avoid association with a major defeat & large capture of US troops. He TRIED to force the Washington politicians into expanding the war onto Chinese territory, advocated fire bombing Chinese cities (Curtis LeMay agreed), asked for use of nuclear weapons on the Korea- China border, specifically asking for cobalt "salted" weapons to create a radioactive no go zone. There are rumors that he felt out some other generals about staging a military coup and removing Truman, who finally had enough of him and sacked MacArthur in 1951.
Yes, Smedley (War Is A Racket) was a pearl among swine. And the oligarchs behind that plot were never punished, never publicly shamed and all continued on making mega dollars.
all during ( and after ) I watched the Victory Day videos - I was wondering about Putin's wife. I guess he just never will appear in public with her. And Xi came alone too. And even that short video of Putin showing his Kremlin apartment and he says he usually sleeps here. Maybe he's trying to keep her completely away from harm.
Putin divorced his wife years ago. He said it was best because he had to devote his life to Mother Russia. Of course, that is not to say he hasn't a girlfriend which I understand he does.
well its a well kept secret but to the best of my knowledge this is his wife when she was much younger - https://youtu.be/l0-42_vQzyc I don't really want to argue about it. I heard they have children and like I said, at one point they were even in a Swiss maternity ( pregnancy ) clinic becaue there were complications in her pregnancy I suppose. I believe it.
Stupid questions are my specialty:-) Everybody heard such rumors, but nobody knows for sure. I'm sure that even in Switzerland, there are patient confidentiality laws, and penalties for violating them.
people saw them there. And sorry and you reply is very endearing. I knew a guy that was very Russian, that came in where I worked in BC....and I was very interested to talk to him because it was when Putin was hated because of MSM....and he had been a soldier for many years in Afghanistan. When the Russians were basically forgotten by their own government ( Yeltsin ) And he moved afterwards to Canada but went back and was at a gathering in Russia where Putin was speaking. And Putin told the entire audience that the reason he didn't ever bring Alina into public was because he had enemies. Russia had enemies. And Sashay - that was this man's name, but the spelling is wrong I think, he said Putin also had children with Alina. And I totally believe this. I have been a Putin groupie for decades and I watched all the mean and nasty dociumentaries that are no longer even available on the internet and I watched all the footage of him with Alina when they met when she was given that great Russian honour for being who she is. The very best Rhythmical Gymnast that has ever walked - He was so enamoured. And his miserable other wife was always mad at him for being away from home so much. And so they divorced finally after years of misery.
Vance answered by saying Russia is asking for “too much”
Maybe Vance can also make a precise calculation on how many square miles of territory Russia can ask for each dead Russian and how many for playing nice and not killing NATO/US soldiers for approaching and crossing the Russian borders.
I must confess the NATO dictums about what Russia can and cannot do are tiresome, as an American I am sincerely grateful that Russia hasn't incinerated the city I live in.
Did anyone else follow Captain Ibrahim Traoré, head of Burkina Faso, on his trip to the Victory Day Parade? He arrived holstered and in military attire.
He's very well-spoken, and was flown to Russia and back on a Russian aircraft. He supposedly recently kicked out the French military from his country.
What is left to sanction exactly? I know there are tons of exceptions in OFAC; and the EU also has a bunch as well (rail lines still transport goods into Poland and other routes) and we all know about the re-routing of Russian O&G into Europe via India.
Also, many Western companies still operate in Russia, so, there is some scope for sanctions. But my sense is that it is really trivial.
As far the recent peace deal noise. I think Putin has invested more than he should have in terms of time with Witkoff. The US was never an honest broker - another bunch of HIMARS/ATACMS are on their way to Ukraine and those missiles will kill more Russian men. And this constant ass-kissing for the Global South; to convince them that they don't want war - what for? Nobody sees the US as anything but an antagonist (see: Trade War), and now that DPRK forces have formally served, even Putin is referring to the SMO as a war it is not exactly news that this is a full on that Russia needs to actually win. A negotiated peace is essentially impossible at the moment, there just hasn't been enough attrition in Ukraine and/or exhaustion in Russia.
The idea that being nice will convince the "Global South" (who speaks for this "Global South", anyway?) to support Russia is just more excuses and cope.
Like dogs, humans support whoever they perceive as stronger.
Nothing wrong with groupthink if its the right kind of think group :-)
Compassionate cats? Most likely non-exist creatures. But I know conniving cats - my friend catsits her daughter's cat, and to piss her off, this creature rather obviously fakes preferring me, whom she doesn't know from Adam, just to teach my friend a lesson lol
I knew definitively how this would end in 2022. And said a year ago the US had already lost WWIII in Ukraine and the Middle East. And would be retreating to Fortress America. All is now happening as it must. Thanks be to God.
Remember how Kim responded when Trump went to visit him? I think the Norks are appreciative of anyone who doesn't disrespect them and try to hurt them. Russia appreciates them and is their neighbor.
Sanctions against NK and Cuba for decades have just hurt those people, and for what? Because we didn't get to win or change the leader?
Because what the West wants is control. "Rules based order" and "democracy" mean nothing to them, it's just the pathetic excuse for stealing resources, installing puppet governments, and trying to isolate any country they can't easily put under their thumb.
The MIC is a big grift. That's why they need to conjure up enemies, who they don't really want to fight, just surround with lots of threats, keeping the MIC churning.
Russia is where they screwed up. They really thought the sanctions and pressure would break Russia and that the rest of the world would fall in line with isolation.
How many times in history has a powerful and arrogant force been brought back to earth by attacking Russia? Russia will retaliate, but in their own way and own time. They have patience and know it's not the citizens but a select group behind these attacks.
Oh no, more of this endless spam ...
Russia's main goal should be nothing short of a complete Ukrainian surrender. The stakes are too high to settle for anything less. See details below.
End of Ukrainian statehood and total de-Ukrainization, not just de-militarization and de-nazification is an absolute minimum winning condition.
Minimum.
Real victory goes way beyond that.
What is Putin going for? Something that amounts to nearly total surrender.
Actually, you don't know what Putin is going for since you don't listen to him. He has never voiced anything different. He has never varied his demands. He has never wavered. His message is clear, consistent and unmistakable.
No NATO. No foreign troops. Limited military. De-nazification. 4 regions + Crimea. Removal of sanctions. New European security architecture.
Have i left anything out?
Yes, Victor. You left out my entire theme of Total surrender of Ukraine.
Putin doesn't say that. I don't kiss his ass like you do. lol
Putin's public demands do not necessarily reflect his real unspoken objectives.
But his actions do, and those actions are even worse than his words
what is your rang in an army you serve to?
So, you are psychic?
Feral, what do you think is the state of mind of Ukrainian citizens regarding this conflict?
I suspect that a good portion of Ukrainians voted for peace, which Zelensky promised, but then changed his doctrine after being elected. Next, Zelensky silenced all criticism of his policies by punishing citizens who opposed him. Surely, Ukrainians must see that they have been played. How do you see it?
You just now discovering that??
oh, you are so brave, sarah, showing your bravery anonymously on a comment section
"Total surrender" doesn't mean "Total Occupation". Russia is happy to leave a rump state of Western Ukraine intact, but militarily neutered. True: Russian troops will have to be stationed in West Ukraine to enforced neutrality and disarmament.
>He has never varied his demands. He has never wavered. His message is clear, consistent and unmistakable.
This is getting ridiculous.
Did he come out publicly in June 2024 and say "We will only negotiate once the Kiev regime pulls out to the administrative borders of all four regions"? Which is high treason against the Russian state on its own, but let's set that aside for a moment. Yes, he did.
Did what he come out and said the other day vary and waver relative to that demand? Oh, yes, it absolutely does.
What happened in between? The Ukro-NATO-Nazis invdaded Russia, slaughtered thousands, and if it wasn't for the help of comrade Kim, they would still be occupying Russian territory, while the border has not been protected in any significant way, the exact opposite in fact, because NATO also gave itself the right to fire missiles deep into pre-war Russia, to which there was no response whatsoever, let alone the kind of response it was an absolute must to follow, as a result of which Russian long-range air defense has been pushed around 100 km deeper into Russia, severely compromising the defense of the border. As we see from the hourly glide bomb strikes launched from right at the border, soon to be followed by Taurus missiles.
Speaking of which, those Taurus missiles are either already there or on the way.
If Putin does not carry out strategic nuclear strikes on Germany once the first Taurus missiles fly, ending the existence of that shitstain on the face of the planet once and forever, he has to be lynched in the middle of the Red Square.
But he won't be, because the unmentionable truth is that the Russian people have been very successfully pacified by a quarter century of "stability" and decadent consumerism, and very skillfully brainwashed to see Putin as its savior. Meanwhile that scumbag and his gang of merry oligarchs are leading them to the slaughter and finishing off what Gorbachev and Yeltsin started.
P.S. Combrade Kim has only a small fraction of the resources under Putin's disposal, but do you see anybody firing even a single bullet/shell/drone/missile into North Korean territory? You don't. While it's a free-for-all on Russia. How did that happen and why?
I give you that the demands of 2022 and Istanbul agreement was sufficient in 2022. But after more than 3 years of War and the involvment of West in direct War with Russia, ther should be another goal with this SMO…
And the SMO-ing bull-shit should have been thrown overboard long since. This is War.
Blood in the water. For me the early details age well. After Ukraine initialed an agreement in Turkey, to then cancel after BoJo laid down the law. Putin paraphrased; You will not get as good a deal in the future.
Name one Nato threat or promise that came true like Putin's have. Oh, ok, yeah Biden did promise to blow up Nord Stream, but for some reason, hasn't bragged about it the way he did after he got that corruption Prosecutor fired for investigating Burismo bribing Biden's son. Not even inspired enough to look up his name. Becky?
So yeah the sharks are circling and what do they haul out? Good ole sanctions. You know they ones that damage the attacker, more than the target. Was it the Patriot that set precedent and now it's our favorite MO?
Yes. The 2022 deal was about Donbass and Luhansk, all other issues as of today. So Ukraine risk to lose a chunk of Cherson and the Zaporitsjia oblast compared to 2022. And that after a very costly War for Russia. It is still a fantastic deal for Ukraine and a big mistake from Russia. But pragmatic Putin is more concerned over his western partners and being amenable.
NATO is in disarray after Trump entered the stage. The puppet Rutte had much talk and posturing in the first month but US is still leading NATO so he has gone more or less silent. NATO had nothing behind their Monday evening deadline. It is Thursday and havent noticed any sanctions floating up.
Lithuania had the good choice to declare Russian nukes as a non-problem and nothing to be scared about. That invitation should be gratified by Russia.
Yawn... Chip
lol
GM: "If Putin does not carry out strategic nuclear strikes on Germany once the first Taurus missiles fly, ending the existence of that shitstain on the face of the planet once and forever, he has to be lynched in the middle of the Red Square."
Your polished hyperbole is noted. You're becoming a bit of a bore, you know...
I could almost believe you're an AI creation - 75% fact and 25% twisted dissembling.
I'm wondering what you think you're bringing to the conversation. What, ultimately, is your point? It's unclear reading your voluminous outpourings what exactly you mean with your verbal circling of the drain approach to conversation. (We used to call it, "Baffle 'em with Boolshite!" when I was younger. What do you call it now?)
Have you correlated those demands with John Galtsky? He deny that they are any…
I agree with you. Those demands are the outspoken. But for a lasting peace the last one is most important. And that means no NATO in the future - otherwise the ”peace” will be short and Russia facing another in about 5-10 years. Russia cant trust either US or collective Europe so I cant imaging how a new security architecture would emerge that voth sides can agree on. With the leaders in EU future looks grim. And after Trump we can expect a surge of ”normalization” of US to the plan of LGTB-ing the whole western world.
Putin has never declared how a denazification would be executed. And no Oreshniks has landed in the bunkers of Bankova obliterating Yermak, Budanov, Umarovs &Co. It was a mistake to not take them out early. But on the other hand, I think plenty of Ukrainians now are convinced that the Ukrainian leadership has sacrificed them for Globalist interests. I cant imagine normal ukrainian are nazis.
Right. That last one says what is unspoken - NATO must disintegrate. Then Russia will negotiate with each European country separately in building his new security architecture. The EU is unlikely to prevent that as they will be breaking up as well. The US will become irrelevant.
My opinion only.
NATO must disintegrate.
Agree.
"Putin has never declared how a denazification would be executed."
Not true. This was explicitly explained in 2022. He stated that it would require specific legislation outlawing Nazism, neo-Nazism and the promotion of Nazi ideology. I think some statues would come down, some streets would be renamed and some torch-lit marches would be banned. I would also imagine many would flee the country or end up in a Siberian gulag. They have repeatedly stated that they will bring to justice those who have committed atrocities band war crimes. They dedicate quite a lot of resources to investigations and documentation. Time will tell.
What they said in 2022 is irrelevant now. Russia has not occupied the whole of Ukraine and cant therefore bring the perpetrators to justice. Let us instead say Ukraine agree on the above mentioned by you. Allowing Russian to be spoken and forbidding marches with Swastikas in the Air will by no means de-nazify Ukraine. If you dont get the hands of the leadership and the Azovs it is all talk.
It ain't over yet, Mikey. Not by a long shot. This geopolitical game of thrones will go on for many years, even if an agreement were to be concluded tomorrow.
"Putin has never declared how a denazification would be executed. And no Oreshniks has landed in the bunkers of Bankova obliterating Yermak, Budanov, Umarovs &Co. It was a mistake to not take them out early."
Personally I have advocated decapitation long ago. But the Kremlin wants to play the media/optics game. It's a painful decision, but there are bigger games in play; namely, the BRICS++. Mushroom clouds over Kiev don't help the Global strategy.
I dont support GM:s Mushroom Clouds ( as I think you mean nukes). I wrote Oreshnik. It creates no Mushroom, just inceneration.
I dont either think XI, Modi, da Silva or for that matter hard-core African leaders are so squeamish that they will abandon BRICS to mourn Budanov, Yermak and Umerov. Contrary, it could signal to them that Putin is not firm enough against the Imperialists of the West…
I added info below, GM.
Denis, careful with cosying up to General Moron's trolling.
Lay down with a dog, get up with fleas.
I agree with some of his moderate comments.
I seek truth no matter where it sits.
No need for "de-Ukrainization". That was a Czarist policy that Lenin upended after the Revolution. Ukrainians are good people when they are not perverted by perverse ideology. Denazification, absolutely, with all these Bandera fascist types either hung or exiled (maybe to Mars).
Can you have an Ukrainian identity that is non-Nazi after Petliura, Bandera and Azov?
No.
Can you have a strong Ukrainian identity on anything else but an anti-Russian foundation?
No, because if you remove that element, then nothing remains. You get current Belarus.
Of course you can, depending on what you mean as "Ukrainian identity". In fact, the Ukraine of the Banderites was part of Poland, not the Ukrainian Soviet. It only became part of the USSR after Victory. Millions of Ukrainians fought and died fighting Hitler and relatively few joined with the SS.
What is especially perverse about the Banderites is that they deny their Slavic heritage and posit they are descended from the Vikings of the short-lived trading post/fortress in Kiev; thus, they are Aryans like their German idols. Before Independence, most Ukrainians thought of themselves as brother and sister Slavs with Russians, which is why this war is emotionally difficult for the Russians. In time, they will think so again.
>Millions of Ukrainians fought and died fighting Hitler and relatively few joined with the SS
In the 1940s.
In the 2020s their grandchildren are in the SS and are fighting to the death against Russia.
Yes, indeed. Of note is that the OSS, then the CIA, kept the Ukrainian Nazi movement alive and used it to terrorize Soviet Ukraine until their defeat by the Soviets in the late 1950s. I am sure the CIA and MI6 kept their hand in as the Banderities were 'Johnny on the spot' in Maidan, well fitted out and armed. That kind of resource doesn't come from Galicia.
Absolutely...with a pro-Russian government installed in what's left of the Ukraine, certainly without Odessa....
As long as Odessa is in foreign hands, Russia will not be safe.
I agree. Why shouldn't Russia have Odessa back. The Tzar loved Odessa
Catherine the Great founded Odessa.
yeah - Its a totally Russian city. Like Kiev. I think they should take back Kiev too
@Ann Watson
Odessa (used to be a Turkish port, before THAT, it was Lithuanian, Greek, Byzantine & etc. under several other names) became Russian & began building a Russian city about the same period as Washington DC became American and our government started constructing their planned capitol city.
But the people there are really from all over- lots of Greeks, Germans & other Baltics, residual inhabitants of every seafaring culture that reached the Black Sea (or navigated the rivers to the North). And even the ones who called themselves Ukrainian mostly spoke Russian until that became dangerous.
She was the Tsaritsa of the time.
Tsarina.
Yes. Therefore the four Oblasts are not enough.
Absolutely - but don't tell anyone!
The only language the NEO-NATOs understand is that might is right.
A negotiated settlement by Russia when it could have defeated and forced Ukraine to surrender would be looked at as a sign of weakness and a lack of Russian resolve and will.
Russia doesn't have to take over Ukraine. It suffices to destroy and dismantle Ukraine militarily and politically. Russia could then set up advanced defensive lines to prepare for a possible NATO incursion at any time in the future. The line would ensure that any hostile forces would be destroyed as soon as they crossed the Ukrainian border with shock and awe, pre-determined bombings at the ready upon command.
There comes a time when the Russian excuses of being fooled by NATO's failure to abide by treaties become a matter of the utter incompetence of the Russian leadership, possibly more concerned about enriching themselves than doing what is necessary to terminate NATO's attempts to destroy it.
The Russian military is most capable in deep penetration attacks, sieging major cities, starving them into surrender, and mopping up retreating stragglers from their broken defensive lines. It doesn't need me to explain to them how to do it.
No country fears Russia until Russia gives them reason to.
It's high time for Russia to assert itself, and that means Total Ukrainian Surrender.
I would add the Total Surrender of Europe and the US. Than Putin and Xi we can have a real World Governance as discussed between these 2 Leaders recently.
lol, the last thing you would want is World Governance by Commie China.
They're more corrupt, oppressive and incompetent than the West.
https://youtu.be/QLhttps://youtu.be/aFbMWq-xvXU?t=33
https://youtu.be/aFbMWq-xvXU?t=33
https://youtu.be/VG_26fuNaPY?t=1
https://youtu.be/0zOdLs0rTZw?t=1
https://youtu.be/_WoUddebIuw?t=4
Look at this for a start.
https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/china-no-way-out?utm_source=publication-search
You ever been to China ? It the West would ever try to Govern a population of 1.5 Billion we all woulndt see the next day light. A lot of misconception about a culture that has developed over 5000 Years. China looks increasingly like a nouveau capitalism, so does Vietnam. What they have a lot more in common is the support of their population. Just look of where we westerners are currently .... going downhill while the Chinese "commies" dragged their people out of poverty and starvation to make it the biggest industrial power on the planet within the past 5 decades.
There is no 1.5 billion.
I don't need to live in commie China to know how this oppressive, corrupt regime works.
Soon, the China bots will attack with their bullshit. lol
Denis, you're going off the edge. Stick to sensible commentary and don't make up stuff where you don't know what you're talking about.
OK, China does not have 1.5 billion people living there. It has only about 1.45 billion people. But in terms of rounding, "1.5 billion" is not an unfair or deceptive characterization.
They're also not "oppressed." China is a very popular vacation destination for Russians. It's a huge country with absolutely spectacular geography and history and many extremely varied regions. I've only been there once but I have many friends here in Russia who have gone on repeated tourist trips there, to different regions, often spending weeks at a time travelling around.
I know people who have travelled in luxury there, staying at top hotels, and I have some working class friends who have gone on extreme budget trips where they travelled around the country on buses and public transport and stayed in cheapo hostels. A few of them are fanatics about making videos about everything they see and do, and I've watched many of those videos to get direct accounts from people who have travelled widely in China and who are not in any way, shape, or form biased. They're just fanatic travelers and interested in discovering all details about a very big, very diverse, and very interesting country.
The first thing about China everybody notes is how prosperous, clean, and futuristic it is. Nothing in the West compares to the hundreds of truly huge cities they have (over 200 with populations over a million) that are full of sparkling skyscrapers and intensely modern and well thought out infrastructure.
The second thing everybody comments on is the social cohesion, patriotism, and pride the Chinese have in their country. Talk of "oppression" is total nonsense. They *know* they have pulled themselves up out of poverty into being the world's most productive real economy, and they're very proud of that.
The third thing everybody comments about is their spectacular work ethic. Working conscientiously is something the Chinese seem to have built into them, and it is an indicator of Western failure and laziness that Westerners can't seem to imagine that people would naturally have a honest work ethic and want to do a good job without somebody beating them or threatening them. Maybe in the West, sure, but not in China, where people believe that working honestly and conscientiously is something that is an obvious part of making a better life for yourself and a better country for everyone.
You don't get that reported in the West for the same reason that basically 100% of what mass media tells you about life in Russia is a lie.
The West thinks it has conquered Russia and China by imposing on Western populations a regime of 24/7 propaganda for morons and canceling all truth about the scapegoats it blames for all the evil the West has done against itself and the world. But in reality by marinating its own people in lies and canceling all truth the only thing the West has done is ensure its own defeat by crippling the ability of its people and its governments to make decisions based on reality.
Denis, are you drinking to excess during the day?
This is even worse than your usual ravings. I bet you do not know or understand a single word in Hanyu, never have read any Chinese novel, nor have - as you confess - ever have been to the country.
Interestingly, 75% of the Chinese consider democracy a good thing (more than US Americans), and, stunningly, as many opine that they are living in a democracy.
Now you may rave about the poor misguided victims of a totalitarian system. Unfortunately, there is no iron (or bamboo) curtain dividing China from the rest of the world. As tens of millions (est. 45-50m) of ethnic Chinese, "huaren", traditionally lived and live outside Zhongguo (the land of the middle), there are bonds and communication between them and the mainland, and have always been Just to mention, over 2 million Taiwanese permanently live and work in China, there are about 200k cross strait marriages.
Tens of millions of Chinese travel abroad, not few to Western countries, millions studied in the West. Originally, that was an escape route for the brightest and those wanting to escape to richer (and, originally, freeer) countries. With rising wealth and openness in China, and rising racism in the West, the US in particular, not few chose to remigrate. And today, Chinese universities are better, in summary, than Western ones, so studying abroad is more for the kids of the wealthy who cannot pass their standards (still, Chinese have the image of overachieving nerds in the West :) ) .
I strongly recommend the essays of Han Feizi in Asia Times for those who want to understand modern China.
To have a glimpse about modern Chinese thought and public debate, I recommend Zhao Tingyang All under Heaven: The Tianxia System for a Possible World Order. Berkeley: University of California Press. English Edition (2021). IISBN 978-0-520-32502-9 . The book was first published in China, Beijing 2005.
Zhao Tingyan is not exactly a marxist or communist, his book contains a lot of critical remarks about communism and marxism. He cites all relevant western philosophers from the Greek and Roman to modern times. Contrary to your predjudices, you will find a complete selection from Plato to Carl Schmitt (really!) in Hanyu in Chinese libraries, and can order them in every bookshop without risking a visit from the GongAn.
The US made China.
China is in deep shit right now. lol
The US maybe "made" China, however the US miscalculated China's ability & drive, so now the US tries to take China down.
You must be butthurt that America just blinked in its "trade war" against China.
Even America's anti-China media mouthpieces like the Atlantic are admitting this defeat.
This is second only to the vaunted American Navy being chased out of the Red Sea (sans a couple of F/A-18 fighter jets) by the Yemenis, one of the poorest nations in the world.
What's next in the conga line of America's "victories"--Russia taking Odessa and Kiev on Trump's watch? Iran developing a nuclear weapon?
The mighty American Empire is imploding big time.
Grab your popcorn.
If the US made China then how was there a China before the US?
BTW I am living in and posting from China right now. I've been here for several years. If you have any questions please let me know.
Mao Zedong laid the foundations of modern China, and Deng Xiaoping used the window of opportunity of the US eager exploiting the rift between USSR and PRC.
The US tried to exploit China as they have done with other less developped countries and met a "partner" using their ruses to develop the country beyond what original rigid planned economy allowed.
Now they are whining: "But, we did not expect you to develop, just wanted to make profits" LOL
I HAVE visited China and it is solid/beautiful/culture magnificent/infrastructure amazing.
that is because China is run by Chinese whereas the "west" is run by a genocidal hostile tribe of chicken swingers...
Why are you linking literal Falun Gong propaganda? Nice try Private Rodriguez, from Eglin Base, Florida
Nope.Nope. And nope.
why you are spilling anti China nonsense?
what's wrong with Communists by the way? - they lifted 800 million out of poverty, mame me one capitalist who did the same without a communist knife on his chest?
lol - compare that to the jew run west.
the white man of the "west" would be much better off under a Putin and Xi World Governance than that of the jew run "west"
Liked, because you're basically right (except when you make the beginner's mistake of underestimating Putin). However, I respectfully disagree with "Russia doesn't have to take over Ukraine. It suffices to destroy and dismantle Ukraine militarily and politically. "
No, I think Russia has to take over Ukraine and again make it what it has been for most of the last one thousand years, a Russian province.
The "dismantling militarily and politically" is an example of what hasn't worked with Poland, Germany and other adversaries for the last century or two. Many people here in Russia (I'm an American living in Russia) have moved to the opinion that the current troubles in Europe are a result of Russians failing to finish the job the last time around, in WW2. Now there is strong momentum building to finish the job this time.
That has to be annexation of *all* of Ukraine at a minimum, just like if you operate to cut out an aggressive cancer tumor you haven't finished the job if you leave part of the tumor in place. I write "at a minimum" because there's an increasing feeling you cannot leave countries that actively commit acts of war against Russia, like Poland, the Baltics, and now even Finland, intact as sovereign sanctuaries from which enemy regimes can commit acts of war against Russia.
Finland is in breach of it's treaty obligations to Russia. Russia has every right to enforce those obligations.
And as you state, John, it too has every right to deal with any country that has joined this 21st century attack on Russia.
>Finland is in breach of it's treaty obligations to Russia
So is Germany
John, I think Putin is the best politician in the world. I'm not underestimating anyone. I also agree with what you're saying here. I just didn't elaborate to infinity, trying to be brief. lol
>That has to be annexation of *all* of Ukraine at a minimum, just like if you operate to cut out an aggressive cancer tumor you haven't finished the job if you leave part of the tumor in place. I write "at a minimum" because there's an increasing feeling you cannot leave countries that actively commit acts of war against Russia, like Poland, the Baltics, and now even Finland, intact as sovereign sanctuaries from which enemy regimes can commit acts of war against Russia.
We are 100% in agreement here.
But the Kremlin and the oligarchs...
The oligarchs don't have the power they had in the 90's or that you think they do now. They've been well and truly cowed, long before the special op, and even those few uppity oligarchs who thought they could live in a parallel world out in the West got cowed when the West started seizing their assets.
What we have now in Russia is a very unified leadership, and that includes the extended leadership that encompasses business leaders like the heads of major banks, oil and gas companies and other companies who are part of the inner circle. Those people are fiercely patriotic and totally loyal to Russia. Regardless of how they may feel about Putin personally they are also very loyal to him and the others in the extended leadership.
What all of those people are unanimous about is prioritizing Russia's continued economic development and success (doing that, of course, also means keeping Russia's population safe from half of it being vaporized). Without economic development and success you don't have a sovereign state, not being able to afford the military you need to keep your sovereignty. They're very practical people and they're not intellectually lazy. Arguments like "Oh, that's too hard, let's just start a nuclear war now so everybody dies on our side and their side" don't cut it with them.
That's the crux of the disagreement, if there is one, between the very savvy, patriotic, and experienced people who run Russia and short attention span Internet folks: the people who know Russia best, knowing all of its strengths and weaknesses, believe they will get the win they want by using a "go slow, with patience" policy that allows Russia's continued economic development and success. They think that's better than killing half of Russia's population in a nuclear exchange, and they also think that's better than unnecessarily violent actions which would cripple Russia's economy (by cutting Russia off from key partners like China) while risking the annihilation of half of Russia's population.
It's the perspective of skilled, very smart, very experienced, and very successful adults.
In no way does the leadership have any conflict at all with the Russian population over that. On the contrary a strategy that delivers a geopolitical win, humbling the US and US goons in Europe, while maintaining spectacular economic development and success in Russia is exactly what the great majority of Russians want. The objectives of the population and the leadership are totally aligned, which is one reason why you see such overwhelming grass roots support for the leadership in Russia. It's delivered what people want: a better life accompanied by steady triumph of Russian arms.
I take a harder line on how this should all end in Ukraine than many people, including many Russians. But I see more and more Russians coming over to my point of view. I also can see why it makes sense for the leadership to play the West's game by saying "sure, come on down to Istanbul and we'll sit down to talk with you."
They can do that all day long because they know there's no way the US or their goons (either in the EU or in Ukraine) will agree to Russia's minimum demands: de-nazification and de-militarization of Ukraine, no attacks on Russian ethnicity or culture in Ukraine, no external forces of any kind either directly or indirectly (like by joining NATO) in Ukraine, and recognition of "the facts on the ground."
De-nazification means basically nobody in the existing government can continue, not at the federal, state, or local levels. I don't see how that can be accomplished without occupying all of Ukraine, but anything with even the slightest "de-nazification" credibility, far short of occupying all of Ukraine, isn't going to be accepted by the nazi goons sitting at the negotiation table. That's obvious to anybody with an IQ over 40. As Simplicius notes in this article, it's obvious to Vance. It's also obvious to every other person in the Trump administration that has retained contact with reality.
So we'll see how all this kabuki theater about negotiation plays out. I think it's going to be a long, drawn out process where Russia continues the de facto process of de-nazification by killing Kiev's troops. At some point when enough of them are killed and the collapse starts happening, then we'll see just how hard Russia's demands will be. For example, the less-noted condition to Russian demands that "in the future it will only be harder for you" will likely play a role as the Kiev regime collapses.
But until then, it's probably underestimating Putin and the leadership to claim that they'll give away the total victory they are well down the path of earning.
Great summary of where we are now.... thank you.
>The oligarchs don't have the power they had in the 90's or that you think they do now. They've been well and truly cowed,
I look at the facts on the ground.
Which are in no way consistent with the oligarchs being under control and the country being run in the interest of anyone else but the same parasitic scoundrels that took over in the late 1980s.
Nothing in the current situation makes any sense otherwise. The only hypothesis that explains all the facts, from Putin's multiple betrayals of the Donbass back in 2014-15, to the way he sabotaged the military in the beginning of the SMO, to the grand treason of Istanbul-1, to the grain and ammonia deals, to the refusal to fight the war seriously, to the current deal being made with the US while the US is bombing pre-war (!!!) Russia daily (!!!), etc. etc.
The only thing that explains it is oligarchs still being fully in control of Russia Inc. and Putin being the CEO diligently answering to the shareholders and the board of directors, but not really making the decisions in the interest of the state.
>What all of those people are unanimous about is prioritizing Russia's continued economic development and success
What success? Russia can barely build half a dozen Su-57s a year and a single-digit passenger airliners. The Soviet technological legacy was allowed to almost fully decay, and most of that happened under Putin.
>the disagreement, if there is one, between the very savvy, patriotic, and experienced people who run Russia and short attention span Internet folks
The "savvy, patriotic, and experienced people" got Russia to the point where it will have irreversibly lost the most productive part of its core historic territories while being reduced to a giant Syria/Libya/Iraq/Lebanon, i.e. a place anyone can bomb and invade whenever they feel like, with zero fear of consequences.
Meanwhile the "short attention span Internet folks" were screaming for this problem to be solved root and branch even before the Maidan. But the 5D-chess grandmasters had better ideas, and where are we now?
>It's the perspective of skilled, very smart, very experienced, and very successful adults.
Putin will go down as the second Nicholas II under the current trajectory, but right now there are no Bolsheviks waiting in the wings to save the country from the Tsar's decadent incompetence and split loyalties while the enemies are much more capable and will not stop in the tundra south of Arkhangelsk.
>De-nazification means basically nobody in the existing government can continue, not at the federal, state, or local levels. I don't see how that can be accomplished without occupying all of Ukraine
Missile and drones strikes can achieve it too, but all of the Nazis have been strictly off-limits in a (not)war started officially with the purpose of "de-Nazification". Make that make sense...
>Russia continues the de facto process of de-nazification by killing Kiev's troops
Most of those troops are press-ganged ethnic Russians who cannot surrender because if they try to do it drones will kill them from the Ukrainian side.
The volume of surrenders has sharply dropped since the early months of the war for that reason.
Putin has been effectively genociding the Russian population in Ukraine while leaving the Banderites mostly untouched.
An amazing success...
You started with reasonable comments and now you've gone completely nuts again. Let's take apart a few of the nuttier comments:
">What all of those people are unanimous about is prioritizing Russia's continued economic development and success
What success? Russia can barely build half a dozen Su-57s a year and a single-digit passenger airliners. The Soviet technological legacy was allowed to almost fully decay, and most of that happened under Putin."
What success? Where have you been? Under a rock? Take a drive through Moscow City Center and see a city from the future.
Success is fantastic quality of life, with rising real incomes, steadily improving civic infrastructure like outstanding mass transit, continuously improving health care, better schools, dramatically healthier and longer living people, and outstanding innovations in industry and consumer products. The cities have become fantastic places to live with wonderful culture, art, great cafes and restaurants and stores and shopping malls full of the world's products.
Your Su-57 and "passenger airliner" claims are a red herring.
From November 2023 to the end of 2025 Russia's production numbers are 63 passenger airliners, an average of 20 per year, with 34 Sukhoi SuperJet 100s, a truly outstanding regional airliner that I've flown on many times, 18 MC-21's and 11 Tu-214s. Those numbers are low given the run rate of 30 Sukhoi SuperJet 100's per year up to 2023 because of the switchover to the new "Sukhoi Superjet New" that has just started production in 2025.
Given the backlog of orders for the SuperJet New and the dramatically scaled up production facilities there's no doubt they'll crush the old 30 per year run rate. The difference between the 100 and the New is that the New has near-zero reliance on any foreign components. The original SuperJet 100 had slightly over 10% US components a consequence of the highly globalized logistics chain that goes into any airliner, while the 100R had less than 10%. Before switching over to 100 New production there were 230 SuperJet 100's built.
But your argument is complete fakery as the world's largest real economy, China, serving over 1.4 billion Chinese, only produces two of its own airliners, the Comac C909 with a total of 176 built since 2017 and the Comac C919 with only 18 units built since 2022. Yet who in their right minds would try to use such statistics to claim China has not had phenomenal economic success in the last 20 years?
Russia, like China, also was buying Airbuses and Boeings and Embraer aircraft. Since the US and EU went sanctions crazy, Russia has decided to restart its own indigenous airliner production with Sukhoi, MC-21, and Tupolev 214's, and also restarting production of a modernized wide-body Ilyushin 96. China is doing the same thing. In both cases the countries are planning for the future.
Russia is planning on completely throwing Western vendors out when the current fleet (an extremely new fleet, like China's) ages in the 2030's. To do that Russia has to grow indigenous production and that doesn't happen overnight. China is doing the same thing, for example, planning on expanding Comac C919 production to 50 aircraft per year next year.
Russia doesn't particularly need Su-57's (it's far more advanced than what is needed either in Ukraine or to defeat NATO) so all the production capacity is going into aircraft that it does need, like the Su-3x series. Those are modernized and new variations that build on many years of Su-27 experience, to create outstanding aircraft that are very inexpensive to build while being rock-solid reliable and implacably lethal.
But Russia still built six Su-57s in 2022, 12 in 2023, 20+ in 2024 and about the same in 2025. Those numbers are way overkill for what Russia needs. They're being built to generate experience for the next generation, future fighter project. That future fighter project is also in doubt, not because of any lack of ability to make it but because Russia has made so much progress so fast with military AI that it looks like manned fighters are a thing of the past.
This is simply wrong: "The Soviet technological legacy was allowed to almost fully decay, and most of that happened under Putin."
Russia in 2025 has far and away better technology than the Soviet Union ever did. The USSR was very good at basics, but Russia is much better at applying high tech to military needs and it is far more agile.
">the disagreement, if there is one, between the very savvy, patriotic, and experienced people who run Russia and short attention span Internet folks
The "savvy, patriotic, and experienced people" got Russia to the point where it will have irreversibly lost the most productive part of its core historic territories while being reduced to a giant Syria/Libya/Iraq/Lebanon, i.e. a place anyone can bomb and invade whenever they feel like, with zero fear of consequences."
That's simply insane. Russia's most productive part of its core historic territories are Russia itself. Ukraine was good for agriculture, but a black hole for money sent from Russia. Russian agriculture has grown to where Russia is the world's largest food exporter. There is nothing remotely comparable between Russia today and "Syria/Libya/Iraq/Lebanon" and for you to write that guarantees you will lose all credibility with anybody who has an IQ over 40. Nobody can bomb or invade Russia whenever they feel like it, with zero consequences. Kiev, for example, lost 76,000 men it could not afford and thousands of armored vehicles just invading a tiny part of Russia. The price Kiev will pay for trying that is losing the war.
You're also lying when you talk about "bombing" Russia. Nobody is "bombing" Russia. What's going on are insignificant drone attacks that 99.99% of the country doesn't even notice. I was at a local mall this past Sunday to see a new blockbuster movie, "Kraken," and in that entire, huge mall packed with people if you started ranting about anybody "bombing Russia" you'd have been laughed at for your idiotic talk.
"but all of the Nazis have been strictly off-limits in a (not)war started officially with the purpose of "de-Nazification"."
Ah, that's a lie. Over 700,000 of the nazis are now dead. A good example is how the original, hard core of the Azov Battalion, over 40,000 men, were killed in Mariupol.
"Most of those troops are press-ganged ethnic Russians who cannot surrender because if they try to do it drones will kill them from the Ukrainian side.
The volume of surrenders has sharply dropped since the early months of the war for that reasons."
[An edit: comparing the volume of surrenders in recent months to the "early months" of the war is lying with statistics, because the situations are dramatically different. In February and March of 2022 the Kiev regime had an army of 500,000 men, the largest and best equipped in Europe thanks to the US and US stooges. When Russia's ultimatums were blown off and Russia invaded, much of that army melted away with well over 100,000 men (by some accounts 200,000 men) simply walking off and not returning. They didn't really "surrender" in the classic sense. They just changed into civilian clothes and went home. Many of them also emigrated to Russia, part of the over five million former Ukrainians who have emigrated to Russia since 2014. There were also huge surrenders as those men at the front who did not want to support the nazi regime or to fight Russia threw down their arms and went over to the Russian side. But that's a one-time rebalancing of the books. The "surrenders" that honest analysts have been discussing for the last three years are those of active troops who as a result of a variety of factors have decided they don't want to die for the Kiev regime. My comments below are about those surrenders.]
Not true. Surrenders have dramatically increased, and it's the press-ganged ethnic Russians who are the first to surrender. For that matter, the press-ganging has not remotely kept up with needs. The de-nazification through death process has been very successful because forced mobilization has been a relatively new process, with ethnic Russians self-selecting out of it in 2022, 2023 and most of 2024 by a) leaving Ukraine, or b) hiding or otherwise not responding to mobilizaiton orders. That means the bulk of the 700,000 killed especially in those years and especially in 2022 and 2023 were gung-ho nazis and nazi-sympathizers who went willingly into the fight.
Kiev has also grown dependent on mercenaries, which have been steadily wiped out, as well as NATO troops contributed primarily by Poland and Romania, which are also part of the de-nazification by death phenonemon as fellow-travellers of the Kiev regime.
You ignorant jackass. You always go completely off the rails when someone disagrees with you. Your Putin hatred so completely clouds your discourse that you essentially nullify even what few comments that you make that are correct. I'm guessing that you are either on sedatives or some strong medication to keep your different personalities from imploding. Get a life, psycho.
Purposes of the SMO: demilitarisation & deNazification. The first has to be accomplished in full before the second can be achieved. Strategically Odessa, city and oblast, is part of this. Note that Putin has gone beyond the SMO to "war". Not a slip of the tongue.
"Note that Putin has gone beyond the SMO to "war". Not a slip of the tongue." No, but it's not something to read a lot into either.
Putin, like most Russians, frequently refers to what's going on in Ukraine as "war." That it is, of course. But it doesn't rise either in his mind or in the mind of Russians to "War" with a capital W. It's just not that big. It really is a special military operation, because it is highly limited fighting. If it was a "War" you'd have all Russia mobilized and not just a 1.3 million man army (growing to 1.5 million) but a ten million man army and there would be no more Baltics, Finland or Kiev regime, and there would be massive destruction in *all* of the EU states that committed acts of war on Russia. That's what Russians think of when they think of War.
I disagree with your example of Germany as not being "successfully dismantled military and politically". Some recent defense minister saw to it that the Bundeswehr was completely crippled and got rewarded handsomely.
Given the actions and statements of the German government that went completely against their population and they being adamant that the Russians destroyed the NordStream pipeline regardless of the facts makes it clear that the German government is the mouthpiece of the occupying powers that rule there for 80 years already.
If the AfD political party would make any difference or could be controlled opposition like other political parties in other EU countries remains to be seen.
The german electoral system will be inconsequential by the end of this year.. too much rampant fraud and hypocrisy that even the blind normie can tell something is quite 'off'. The incoming chancellor said a whole bunch of things to get elected, and then prompted did a 180... greatly expanding the debt too. There is a generational trauma about the inflation debt spiral in that society, s the current elite control system is on its last legs with zero legitimacy left.
None of that matters, as long as germans continue to obey authority like the good little europeans that they are.
I am fairly skeptical about the Bundeswehr incompetence. Certainly, like all Western armies, they have the troubles of an overly expensive and untested heavy equipment with the ashamable performance of Leopard, PzH, Gepard, Iris etc. This is why NATO and US cannot win a war against Russia or China, not even against the Houthis.
But still, the Bundeswehr cadre of higher and middle officers is competent and well trained, they have a couple of elite units. It would be utterly foolish to underestimate them.
I hope a lot that this 800m Euro armament program will end in a blunder. Certainly, it will drive up equipment prices so much will go up in smoke. But not all.
It is a fund to be picked clean with minimal oversight.
Giant fraud & money laundering. By corrupt officials.
Ursula VDL before she failed upwards.
Rational folks like you and I with even half a brain can see and understand that. The fact that most of the western sheeple don't, just shows how utterly stupid they've become. I fully understand that after all the blood and sacrifice in this SMO, the Russians will make the west pay extremely dearly for quite a while. The folks who think that once normal relations resume and Russia will quickly supply Germany cheap gas again - are in la-lal land. That ship has sailed.
I hope so - we Germans are out of our minds, stupid, fearful and with no direction, chaos is waiting and bad things are ahead for Germany
Same for the Netherlands.
Diversity was never our strength: quite the opposite.
Russia doesn't have to literally occupy W. Ukraine. They would be embroiled in and endless low-level insurgency, worse than USSR occupation of E. Europe.
Cooperative administrators in Kiev could do the job, with Russian bases on the Belarus and Transnistria borders to enforce neutrality and demilitarization with intense monitoring and periodic military strikes. Odessa must be in Russian hands for this to work.
The one thing that all successful insurgencies have in common is a young population. The median age in Ukraine is over 40, and that from before the war started.
These 40 year olds are still fighting after three years. Russia (nee USSR) faced an insurgency in Afghanistan... they want no part of that.
1. Insurgency =/= conventional war.
2. The Afghan war actually went better for the Soviets than conventional wisdom would have it. Without bothering to go into a long tangent, the Najibullah government survived Soviet withdrawal and only collapsed when it no longer had subsidized fuel.
2. Russia defeated an insurgency in Chechnya.
@John Galtsky
"[T]here's an increasing feeling you cannot leave countries that actively commit acts of war against Russia, like Poland, the Baltics, and now even Finland, intact as sovereign sanctuaries from which enemy regimes can commit acts of war against Russia."
What do you mean, precisely, about Russia not leaving these countries (Poland, the Baltics, Finland) 'intact'?
How does Russia do that?
And is there a feeling that these countries have 'actively' committed 'acts of war against Russia'?
Or do you mean if they do commit acts of war...in the future?
"What do you mean, precisely, about Russia not leaving these countries (Poland, the Baltics, Finland) 'intact'?"
By not leaving them 'intact as sovereign sanctuaries,' which is the phrasing I used. In other words, ending their existence as sovereign entities. Instead of being "countries" they would revert to their former status as provinces, territories, colonies, depopulated wastelands, whatever.
"How does Russia do that?"
By first winning the war against them that they started with Russia. Given the delusional nature of their leaderships and the active brainwashing of their populations they have undertaken with such intensity, that's going to be a very hot war for them, as they show no signs of capitulation. That will vary between the different countries.
The Finns are likely to be more sensible once their government and military is destroyed. The Baltics don't really matter given their rabidly anti-Russian populations are so tiny, less than just one of the districts of the city of Moscow. The Poles will ensure what used to be their country will be transformed into a European version of Gaza, as they've specialized in doing every hundred years or so.
All that will start with removing the UK and France as nuclear powers, surprisingly easy to do given the basically fake nature of their "deterrent". In the case of the Brits it's just a single submarine on patrol, which takes them months to get ready. Kill that when it is arriving or leaving port, eliminating Faslane and the other subs and there's literally no more UK strategic deterrent. The only nukes the Brits have are warheads for Trident missiles launched by their subs. They can't afford maintaining other nukes so they put all their eggs into a single Trident basket.
France is even easier, as they can no longer afford to keep even a single sub on patrol. Months go by where all of the French strategic subs are in port. Those are easily removed in a matter of minutes (literally, less than ten minutes) with hypersonics. France's only other nuclear "deterrent" is (don't laugh... they think people are stupid enough to believe them) a motley collection of Raphael fighter bombers conveniently concentrated in two or three bases or on the single French carrier that spends all of its time in refit in Toulon. Those also are easy to eliminate in a matter of minutes with suborbital hypersonics.
Other NATO nukes are in a tiny handful of bases, also easy to eliminate in a matter of minutes. Clear the decks of those and then begin demilitarizing and (let's misuse the term to extend it to nazi collaborators) de-nazifying the immediate belligerents on Russia's borders: Poland, the Baltics, and Finland. Very low yield airbursts would do a first rate job of wiping out their militaries with far fewer civilian collateral casualties than is typical for US military actions.
"And is there a feeling that these countries have 'actively' committed 'acts of war against Russia'?"
Of course. When a country's military actively participates in the killing of Russian civilians and Russian soldiers, that's an act of war. When a country arms and financially supports entities that kill Russian civilians and Russian soldiers, that's an act of war. When a country embargos or takes other measures to destroy Russia's economy that's an act of war. When a country seizes or harasses Russian ships that's an act of war (if you're an American you should know that was the US basis for declaring war on England in 1812). Heck, when a country seizes 350+ billion of Russia's money that's an act of war, and when a country seizes Russian diplomatic properties that's an act of war. Insulting a country or actively propagandizing against a country has for millennia been an act of war. For that matter, when a country has taken active military measures, like moving hostile offensive weapons into position to attack a country, that's an act of war. When a country joins a hostile military alliance that is preparing offensive war against a country, that too is an act of war. And then with NATO there's the effect of Article 5, which means that "an attack by any NATO member is an attack by all NATO members". Poland, the Baltics, and Finland have all committed the above acts of war, and even if they did not directly participate in other acts of war, like the US's destruction of Nordstream pipelines, by joining NATO they are participants in the attack.
Seriously, what planet are you from where they think that you can actively participate in and assist in the killing of Russian civilians and soldiers and that's not an act of war?
There is extremely strong feeling building in Russia that "this must be finished" and by that they don't just mean finishing off the nazis in Ukraine. So far, I grant, it is a minority opinion that peace requires setting a precedent that committing an act of war against Russia means you lose your foul country, at least in the case of those countries that, by direct proximity, pose an immediate threat to Russia. But the percent of the population that holds that opinion is growing, and I think sometime within 2025 it may become the majority opinion.
Thanks, seriously, for the explanation. It explains, to some extent, I guess, Russia's ongoing military build up. But I can't help but think any of the actions you describe against Poland, the Baltics, or Finland, let alone Britain and France, would provoke a full blown NATO response and, presto, WWIII.
Fair points. Some comments...
"It explains, to some extent, I guess, Russia's ongoing military build up."
I don't think that's the explanation. That a minority of the population (a growing but still to date a small minority) believes punching down once and for all the ancient enemy (Poland), the vicious crazies in the Baltic, and the untrustworthy Finns is very, very far from the leadership in Russia thinking that's necessary. And even so the minority view isn't necessary to explain Russia's perfectly logical reaction to military threats from NATO.
Consider: the US has attempted, yet again, to ring Russia with intermediate range nuclear weapons and with offensive military bases. NATO is actively fighting a war against Russia, with NATO personnel participating in the killing of Russian civilians and Russian military personnel. NATO's three nuclear powers are directly participating in that. Russia would have to be insane to ignore the reality that it is at war with NATO.
So sure, Russia has to build up its military. It's getting ready for a hot fight with NATO given NATO's repeated determination to "inflict a strategic defeat on Russia" and the often-repeated NATO objectives of destroying Russia's economy and dismembering Russia into smaller states. Those are often cloaked in a propaganda for morons narrative fed to Western audiences about "deterring Russian aggression," but Russia knows it wasn't the aggressive party in Ukraine.
The US and NATO were, doing a regime change operation in Ukraine in 2004 and then again with great violence in 2014. Russia intervened on the eve of the US's planned invasion of Donbass (striking just hours before the invasion was to launch), where the US and NATO had positioned 130,000 of Kiev's most fanatic nationalist troops to invade and once and for all ethnically cleanse Donbass. That was after they had killed 14,000 ethnic Russians in Donbass in the preceding years, so, sure, you bet, Russia took that invasion very seriously.
"I can't help but think any of the actions you describe against Poland, the Baltics, or Finland, let alone Britain and France, would provoke a full blown NATO response and, presto, WWIII."
NATO has laughably insufficient conventional "response" capability. All it has is a nuclear threat from the US, the UK and France. The scenario I outlined takes that off the table right at the outset. Neither the US nor NATO will have any nukes left in Europe with which they could attack Russia. The only nuclear response would have to be a strategic US response.
As for conventional NATO strength, that, too would be eliminated in the scenario I outlined by tactical nuclear strikes on NATO forces poised to invade Kaliningrad and the main part of Russia. Eliminating Poland's military as well as NATO bases that threaten Russia, like the beefed-up airbases in Poland, the AEGIS ashore base near the Baltic Sea, and so on, doesn't take a lot of ordnance with 10kt to 100kt airbursts doing the work. Anybody who thinks the Germans or Swedes are going to saddle up the handful of troops they have for a conventional assault on Russia after that is nuts.
As for a US strategic nuclear strike on Russia the belief among more and more Russians is that the US will not guarantee the death of over 300 million Americans and the extinction of the United States as a country and a culture as a response to Russia removing the ability of the UK, France, and NATO to strike Russian cities with nuclear weapons. So long as Russia doesn't strike US cities in the homeland, the reality, so it is believed, is that the US won't give a hoot about the UK and France being removed as nuclear powers and the US will not strike the Russian homeland with nuclear weapons.
That's the dividing line between a WWIII that teaches Europe not to fuck with Russia as they've been doing, and total destruction of the United States in a full power WW3. Nobody in the US, of course, gives a hoot if every last Russian was incinerated in WW3, but they care about themselves and they know perfectly well that if they strike Russia, Russia will strike the US and there's not a damn thing the US can do to stop that strike.
The US, at least under Trump, also knows that a US nuclear strike on Russia that Russia will answer with a nuclear strike on the US is bound to escalate into a maximum exchange that eradicates the US. They also know that if Russia goes for denuclearization strikes in Europe and then insists on demilitarization of Europe, WW3 can stop right there.
The US doesn't really give a hoot about Europe either, or at least not enough to commit suicide. That's not the US's style. Instead, throwing Europe under the bus is more like the US's style.
That's also the lesson the US will learn, that having a nuclear arsenal doesn't mean you can use it against another nuclear power without limitations. You can only use it if you destroy, or at least denuclearize, that other nuclear power. That could be yet another lesson coming out of the Ukraine conflict.
The world has already seen how US/NATO wonder weapons are often useless, for example, how hyper-expensive NATO tanks on a battlefield saturated by drones aren't really good for anything but occasional use as static, second rate tube artillery.
Another lesson could be that building a hyper-expensive nuclear arsenal that is not a truly hermetic deterrent puts you in danger, not your much larger and more sophisticated nuclear adversary. It's plain dangerous to threaten Russia with nuclear weapons if all you have is a single sub that can be easily killed. Russia is almost obliged to kill that sub and denuclearize you. Seriously, if you have the technical means to remove the threat, why allow a deranged power that threatens you with vicious stupidity to have nuclear weapons?
The British ballistic sub base at Faslane is in a fjord where it can be destroyed without harm to any big population center. The British storage depot for Trident warheads is in an adjacent fjord in Coulport, also far away from significant population. The joint UK/US nuke storage facility in Lakenheath is close to the village of Lakenheath, but that's not a big city.
The French put their ballistic sub base across the bay from Brest, a big population center. But even so a 300 kiloton airburst to take out France's subs would not level Brest and would only cause light damage, blowing out windows, in Brest. To arm their Raphael fighter bombers they put their main nuclear weapons storage facility near Istres, a medium sized city which would be destroyed, but major population centers like Aix-en-Provence and Marseille would be completely untouched. A strike on the carrier in the naval base near Toulon could use a relatively small nuke, ten kilotons, to leave the city of Toulon itself undamaged.
Other US/NATO nuclear weapons depots in Europe aren't near big population centers. Even Ramstein air base is in a rural area. No need to strike Berlin or downtown Frankfurt (which is safely far away from Frankfurt airport).
Just saying, that whereas a "military only" strike by the US on the Russian homeland or by Russia on the US homeland is a myth, a denuclearization-only strike by Russia on the UK, France, and nuclear weapons forces in Europe is a perfectly feasible reality.
If Russia limited the direct, hot war to immediate threats right on its borders (Poland, the Baltics, and Finland), yes, the US would learn its nuclear arsenal would be good only for committing suicide.
The bottom line is there is a big difference between either the US or Russia striking a third rate nuclear power and them striking each other. None of Russia's allies have attacked the US, so there aren't any third rate nuclear powers aligned with Russia that the US could strike. But the US's allies have attacked Russia, and Russia can strike them.
Especially after the experience in Ukraine, I don't think anybody who knows the US believes the US will commit suicide to save a bunch of countries that have been killing Russians.
Indeed. They know this as well. The collective west is completely ignorant of the history and the reasons for the SMO or they are purposely (stupidly) ignoring it. Western leaders are a collective group of clowns... Chip
When you've taken 400K+ casualties, you better come home with total victory.For Russia, Ukraine was not an "elective war"
unconditional surrender...
When will the Russian military find the courage to coup these traitors?
How can you:
1) Leave most of Ukraine to the Nazis. Which is what the current trajectory is shaping up to be.
2) Talk shit about how Zelensky is illegitimate, and demand that a precondition for negotiations is Ukro-NATO-Nazi withdrawal from Kherson, Zaporozhye and Slavyansk/Kramatorsk, then come out and offer immediate negotiations "with no preconditions" directly with the nacrofuhrer?
3) Suddenly become friends with the Americans at the same time while they are firing missiles into your cities (there was yet another HIMARS strike on Rylsk just yesterday)?
Who in their right mind does these things if he is sincerely working for the good of Russia?
Take these traitorous pieces of shit out and put someone in who will go to war for real.
You need to get some facts straight if you want your low energy trolling to gain any traction. The preconditions mentioned above were for a ceasefire, not negotiations. Russia's leadership has widespread support, so calling for its ouster makes you anti-Russian, a Ukrainian basically.
It's illegal to criticize Russia's military conduct, with sentences ranging from 2-5 years in jail.
Here, in the US, we barely escaped bill H. R. 867 by which Americans would be fined up to $300,000, criminal penalties as high as $1 million or 20 years in prison for boycotting the actions of ISRAEL! Murders get less severe penalties!
Try criticizing immigration or trannies in the UK.
Do it Jeannie. Fill your boots.
Nothing will happen to you, except people will think you're reactionary and a bit thick.
Oh right, UK is all about free speech. No problems with that lately, noooo!
The people suffering a loss of free speech are those supporting Palestine.
Had you referenced them I would have agreed with you.
But you went for the low hanging fruit. Trannies and immigrants get shit from the press on a daily basis. It's entirely possible to say pretty much anything about them.
They are convenient scapegoats, just don't threaten the Establishment and you'll be fine.
Thick... Ha, those same people who clapped for the NHS, wore face masks and stockpiled loo roll...
I never said they were a minority, EM. 😁
Not true, John. Many have lost their jobs over criticising immigrants, LGBT/whatever and zionists. And the government allowed that. This to me is a suppression of free speech by proxy.
But that kind of degeneration is expected there.
Meanwhile there is that inconvenient fact that nobody wants to acknowledge that Putin has gone much harder after the Russian patriots than he has ever fought against the Ukrainian, let alone the Western Nazis.
Russian patriots are in jail, Ukro-Nazis roam freely, and Western Nazis come to visit them and do some lines of coke together whenever they feel like, and nobody is touching them in any way.
What does that tell us?
Wrong. If you criticise such items, expect to get your collar felt right in your front room, by the local plod. However, get burgled, mugged, car stolen and you won't see a single policeman.
There is not free speech in the UK as it currently stands.
In case you missed Tucker's interview with Conor McGregor, a prospective presidential candidate in Ireland. <<link>>
For a guy who has taken a lot of blows to the head...he's pretty articulate in describing the immigrant problem there and by extension the rest of invaded Europe. He states that the political system there is so rigged that even being allowed in any race would be verboten. There's a TON of info in this interview.
https://youtu.be/HLEA8XoxPIg?si=XsQNCaITs_sU86YE
That's also factually incorrect, you can criticize all you want, what you can't do is lie. Go read the law.
Well I guess a lot of politicians and news talking heads are in big trouble then. Who decides what's a lie?
If you read Russian military blogs, there is a lot of criticism of military conduct, sometimes rational criticism, but not seldom foolish and arrogant armchair generalship, even blaming military and political leadership of incompetence and even treason. I am not aware that dva mayora, rybar, andrey medvedyev, poddubny or the like have been threatened, prosecuted, or fined, not to mention arrested.
That's factually incorrect. You can criticize, and mil bloggers do it all the time, what you can't do is to lie. Frankly, this law is so leaky and botched, that some mil bloggers, bonafide 5th columnists, like Sladkov, Fighterbomber etc can lie about SMO but doing it so craftly that they can't be even prosecuted.
"No preconditions" is meant they will not accept any preconditions from the Collective West, such as immediate 30-days ceasefire and whatnot.
Who is leaving most of the Ukraine to Zio-Banderites? Now the convo is in the realm of Novorossia+. Probably Kiev will reunite as well, treatment of priests and Pechersk Lavra will not be forgotten. Rump Ukraine (if it remains) will be pro-rus and other banderite parts will reunite with other countries. Can't wait for Poles to whine about Banderites then.
Nobody is friend with Americans, they are just professional diplomats.
Totally agree until the last sentence - the Americans know absolutely nothing about professional diplomacy.
I had Russians in mind, not Muhriqanis. :D
Even if the military were to execute a coup today, you would find that the business of actually governing Russia, of finding people who are competent and loyal (to the military) to run key positions, would make the task impossible.
I am aware. It's probably why it hasn't been done already.
But the Bolsheviks had the same problem and they solved it quickly.
And at this point Putin is about to surrender everything, so what is there to lose?
There is bit more to running modern Russian than there was in 1917. There is a reason that military or other coups are rarely successful.
People…after 3 years of trying to change GM’s mind and yet it keeps doubling down on being wrong why don’t you just stop replying to it? No matter what you say it comes back with the same talking points so just quit feeding it. Let it post into space instead and stop wasting your time.
Russia 'isolated' (sic) in Europe. Which 'Europe' would that be, then, the amazing red giant EU about to turn into a white dwarf?
Soon it will be revised down to just 'isolated in western Europe'.
Meow, say it ain’t so💙🇷🇺❤️
Well....with the possible exceptions of the Czech Republic and Moldova and Romania (unless of course democracy finally prevails in Romania).
Moldova is holding parliamentary elections in September and there could be a massive shift in foreign policy as a result
Indeed, if the results of the election are not reversed. ;-)
EU 'leadership' is already just a real-life version of 'Red Dwarf' (Comedy TV show).
And we all know who is Arnold Judas Rimmer.....
Was his middle name really Judas??? :o :'D
Vance is right - Russia is asking too much since they ask for territory they have not taken yet. So Russia's response is to proceed to take that territory.
The West would totally prefer Russia to gain devastated lands, rather than to save the misery (And often the lives) of the Ukrainian civilians.
Which in the West's calculus mean as much as Gazans suffering.
So much for all that "Human rights" guff.
"gain devastated lands", form the economic perspective, not a bad idea. The factories and mines in the Donbass are old, now is the opportunity to bring them up to modern standards. The same for the housing. Russia has growing reserves that it can hardly invest, as the West has gone mad on sanctions. The soldiers will leave the army and find well payed jobs in construction, and all without printing money.
It's considerably easier to redevelop an area without having to clear unexploded munitions from it, however, and the toxicity from exploded ones.
Plus all the civilians who refuse to leave their homes during the hostilities.
So, theoretically when the Russians actually have secured all (nearly all is sufficient probably) of those regions, and for the West it is clear the AFU just can't do anything against their advances then, maybe then for the West and Ukr there is the actual interest in stopping by giving in to Russias demands.
Because then they would have drawn this conflict out as much as they could with the current Russian demands, from which they know the Russians won't back down. So, they need to settle just right before Russia might increase its demands.
>when the Russians actually have secured all (nearly all is sufficient probably) of those regions
>giving in to Russias demands
Please note that the "Russian demand for the four regions" is nothing else but a tacit admission of the complete failure of the SMO and in effect Putin begging for surrender terms.
Why is nobody asking the obvious question "why those four regions and were they what the SMO was about?".
The answer should be obvious -- it is those four regions because they are the only territories that were securely captured and then not given up without a fight. For half of that we have to thank the brave people of the Donbass, who picked up arms back in 2014, for the rest the thin Ukrainian defenses in Kherson and Zaporozhye in February 2022.
But had Russia managed to take Nikolaev and then Odessa and had Putin not committed grand treason in Istanbul, but pushed just a bit harder instead on the battlefield it would be several more regions that were annexed (Odessa, Nikolaev, Chernigov and Sumy, and a big part of Kharkov, even if without the city itself).
The "four oblasts" is just how the battlefield dice rolled thanks to Putin's incompetence, him being the errand boy for the Russian oligarchy, and the Russian oligarchy's traitorous position relative to the core interests of the Russian state, all which combined doomed the early war effort and have been kneecapping it ever since.
I think Putin does great. Not because I think he maximized the territory, idk but I am quite willing to admit that you are right, that there were more aggressive ways to secure a lot more of those regions that actually better should be with Russia (Because the people there want it).
However, what he did great was, by basically bending over backwards since 2014 (and earlier actually), being super passive (no increase in military production, conscription etc until the very last moment) he won the favor of the world. Also from a lot of people like me, sitting in the West. Had he been a lot more aggressive I think it at least very likely, that the West's efforts to isolate Russia might have been a lot easier and maybe actually fatal for Russia's economy.
So, I am no clairvoyant, so maybe the militarily more aggressive route might have worked as well with still gaining the necessary favor of the world. However, I think playing it save was the right choice. The West is checkmate now and actually never stood a chance. The cost for that was battle field performance.
LOL "Vance is right"...Just uttering that some idiot in USA is right about something, is enough to nullify this comment. No, Vance is not right. USA is the "root cause of this conflict" and has no say in what Russia can or cannot do. And since Russia is winning and humiliating USA and its proxies / vassals in Ukraine, both militarily and economically, Russia decides what it wants, when it wants it.
The supremacist / fascist, clear nazi nature of USA and its european vassals and proxies like Ukraine, does not allow them to take the "humble pie" that the russians are offering them. Russia can take the whole of Ukraine if it decides to do so and the west's defeat will be much greater, when compared to what it will be if Russia's current proposal is accepted. Vance and his idiot boss Donald Trump, the "peacemaker" warmongers, need to shut up and stay in their place of the largest terrorist organization in the world, because that's the only thing they can do and whatever they say, is irrelevant and meaningless. Their words and signatures are worth less than a piece of sh*t.
Perhaps you should learn to better recognise sarcasm. But aside from that, I agree with you.
Indeed. I did not recognize any sarcasm there, because to be fair to myself, I read a lot of comments and there are a lot of people that do say things like that...without sarcasm! That the "USA person, the root cause of all wars, all terrorism, all evil in the world, is right about something..."
Ukraine is almost history. 8 more months till capitulation.
Next Winter? Feels about right...
"Sure," says Putin, "We'd love to have a ceasefire with Ukraine! Unfortunately, the DPRK troops are enjoying themselves too much, and have asked us to continue instead. So sorry".
:'D
What Ukraine really wants/needs is a massive injection of NATO troops on the ground. Instead we are having the same old, same old disinterring of some wonder weapon or other that old europe can lob at Russia from an increasingly imaginary safe distance.
Nato troops are probably not as good as the seasoned Ukrainian forces now, and would struggle with conventional NATO doctrine in the current situation. No air cover, no drone training, and highly limited materiel.
And they'd be top priority for another Oreshnik test.
What Zelensky is really praying for is NATO's Nukes.
Not to mention a strong disinclination to die for the Ukrainian cause, exceeded only by the disinclination of Americans to go in and die for this cause- whatever this cause might be actually be.
When the war began, some Americans I know had such "strong feelings" about Ukraine, so I was just offering them a $5 bet if they could find Ukraine on the map at the first attempt. None did.
Most can't find the USA on a map.
he could, tho. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGWirirzcqI
I kept explaining to Americans from day one: There are only two possible outcomes for this war, a Russian victory or a nuclear war. They were looking at me like the one who had never seen a White Man before. Most Americans are simply detached from the reality. They cannot comprehend the changes that took place globally in the last few decades. The DeepState structure and the controlled media have such a hold on the collective American mind that they actually have the option to herd them into the middle of a nuclear conflict where they have nothing to win.
If Zelensky is praying for something than it is a „personal exit“. He dose not give a shi… about this whole affair. But he took the role of his life which will probably cost his life.
And it is not the Russians he is afraid of.
The „patriotic bodybuilders“ and their puppet masters in London and Langley are blocking his way to „lambada beats and bikinis.“
‘What Ukraine really wants/needs is a massive injection of NATO troops on the ground.’
It is unlikely that NATO/US troops can end this conflict by walking into Ukraine. There are three nations that desperately will keep helping Russia from going under in this conflict: China, Iran and North Korea. In their view, if Russia is steamrolled they are next and they had already proven that they are willing to stand up. Remember, between 1950 and 1958 Mao sent a total of 3 million Chinese soldiers to participate in the Korean conflict and this was just a short time after the creation of the Chinese communist state, they had zero nuclear arms at the time. As far as the world and China understood the situation the US could have burned with nukes every large Chinese group concentration. The Chinese did it because they wanted to avoid the US Army on their North Korean border section. The writing is already on the wall that China is the next target and it would be naïve to think that the CCP will not mine an opportunity to beat America’s proxy war in Ukraine.
I think the support of China et al is a tad more positive than a fear of 'being next'.
Trump has reminded anyone who needed reminded, just what being dominated by the US means. And it is luridly awful.
Russia must win to put the western megalomaniac lunatics back inside their own asylum. Jung said that in roughly each new generation a force surfaces in the world to remind everyone what THE LAW really means. This is Russia's part in this wider unfolding of the Jungian great collective mind. It is just one of Goethe's energetic facts.
Good comment, and positive, as you say. I visualize Russia's flag with the prominent St George slaying the vile serpent.
The US general in charge (I forget the piece of shit's name) of the Korean theatre did threaten China with nukes when the inept US forces were surrounded.
Curtis Lemay
Ah yes. Tnx. My memory isn’t what it used to be.
Mine either, but Lemay stands out for me as a special kind of War Pig.
The US forces were outnumbered there so badly that even the presence of superior air force could not secure them a clear victory in North Korea.
Think Douglas MacArthur. Dugout Doug ignored orders to stop his advance, then drove towards the Chinese border without establishing required logistics deliberately putting his troops in an untenable position where an expansion of the war to "save them" could be demanded from politicians wishing to avoid association with a major defeat & large capture of US troops. He TRIED to force the Washington politicians into expanding the war onto Chinese territory, advocated fire bombing Chinese cities (Curtis LeMay agreed), asked for use of nuclear weapons on the Korea- China border, specifically asking for cobalt "salted" weapons to create a radioactive no go zone. There are rumors that he felt out some other generals about staging a military coup and removing Truman, who finally had enough of him and sacked MacArthur in 1951.
"There are rumors that he felt out some other generals about staging a military coup and removing Truman"
But, but, but, only generals in banana republics and third world 'shitholes' coup their governments.
@grr
To be fair, at least once in the US a general has STOPPED an oligarch orchestrated fascist coup.
Major General Smedley Butler (Ret.) and the "Businessman's Plot:
https://youtu.be/2pSOekHA8OQ?si=rWAqPi_aNvvr6fbK
Yes, Smedley (War Is A Racket) was a pearl among swine. And the oligarchs behind that plot were never punished, never publicly shamed and all continued on making mega dollars.
all during ( and after ) I watched the Victory Day videos - I was wondering about Putin's wife. I guess he just never will appear in public with her. And Xi came alone too. And even that short video of Putin showing his Kremlin apartment and he says he usually sleeps here. Maybe he's trying to keep her completely away from harm.
Putin divorced his wife years ago. He said it was best because he had to devote his life to Mother Russia. Of course, that is not to say he hasn't a girlfriend which I understand he does.
see. its such a well kept secret you don't even know about it.
Svetlana, Putin's ex, is married to another man, a younger man, I believe:-)
Putin's married with children. He and his wife at one point were even in Switzerland at a maternity clinic. After his previous divorce.
To my knowledge Putin only had one wife, Lyudmila and they had two children, Maria and Katerina.
If you know otherwise, pls send a link?
well its a well kept secret but to the best of my knowledge this is his wife when she was much younger - https://youtu.be/l0-42_vQzyc I don't really want to argue about it. I heard they have children and like I said, at one point they were even in a Swiss maternity ( pregnancy ) clinic becaue there were complications in her pregnancy I suppose. I believe it.
Did you mean Alina Kabaeva?
Isn't that a kind of stupid question ?
Stupid questions are my specialty:-) Everybody heard such rumors, but nobody knows for sure. I'm sure that even in Switzerland, there are patient confidentiality laws, and penalties for violating them.
people saw them there. And sorry and you reply is very endearing. I knew a guy that was very Russian, that came in where I worked in BC....and I was very interested to talk to him because it was when Putin was hated because of MSM....and he had been a soldier for many years in Afghanistan. When the Russians were basically forgotten by their own government ( Yeltsin ) And he moved afterwards to Canada but went back and was at a gathering in Russia where Putin was speaking. And Putin told the entire audience that the reason he didn't ever bring Alina into public was because he had enemies. Russia had enemies. And Sashay - that was this man's name, but the spelling is wrong I think, he said Putin also had children with Alina. And I totally believe this. I have been a Putin groupie for decades and I watched all the mean and nasty dociumentaries that are no longer even available on the internet and I watched all the footage of him with Alina when they met when she was given that great Russian honour for being who she is. The very best Rhythmical Gymnast that has ever walked - He was so enamoured. And his miserable other wife was always mad at him for being away from home so much. And so they divorced finally after years of misery.
Vance answered by saying Russia is asking for “too much”
Maybe Vance can also make a precise calculation on how many square miles of territory Russia can ask for each dead Russian and how many for playing nice and not killing NATO/US soldiers for approaching and crossing the Russian borders.
I must confess the NATO dictums about what Russia can and cannot do are tiresome, as an American I am sincerely grateful that Russia hasn't incinerated the city I live in.
nuking the africa like American cities would only improve america...
Did anyone else follow Captain Ibrahim Traoré, head of Burkina Faso, on his trip to the Victory Day Parade? He arrived holstered and in military attire.
He's very well-spoken, and was flown to Russia and back on a Russian aircraft. He supposedly recently kicked out the French military from his country.
What is left to sanction exactly? I know there are tons of exceptions in OFAC; and the EU also has a bunch as well (rail lines still transport goods into Poland and other routes) and we all know about the re-routing of Russian O&G into Europe via India.
Also, many Western companies still operate in Russia, so, there is some scope for sanctions. But my sense is that it is really trivial.
As far the recent peace deal noise. I think Putin has invested more than he should have in terms of time with Witkoff. The US was never an honest broker - another bunch of HIMARS/ATACMS are on their way to Ukraine and those missiles will kill more Russian men. And this constant ass-kissing for the Global South; to convince them that they don't want war - what for? Nobody sees the US as anything but an antagonist (see: Trade War), and now that DPRK forces have formally served, even Putin is referring to the SMO as a war it is not exactly news that this is a full on that Russia needs to actually win. A negotiated peace is essentially impossible at the moment, there just hasn't been enough attrition in Ukraine and/or exhaustion in Russia.
Good to see front line moving again.
The idea that being nice will convince the "Global South" (who speaks for this "Global South", anyway?) to support Russia is just more excuses and cope.
Like dogs, humans support whoever they perceive as stronger.
Versus cats "every man for himself?"
Cats are capable of compassion, so it's not quite "every cat for himself" but yes, groupthink is also What Gets Things Done.
Nothing wrong with groupthink if its the right kind of think group :-)
Compassionate cats? Most likely non-exist creatures. But I know conniving cats - my friend catsits her daughter's cat, and to piss her off, this creature rather obviously fakes preferring me, whom she doesn't know from Adam, just to teach my friend a lesson lol
Of course we can be compassionate. Bringing inept hunters mice, for example.
Mice dead of rat poison, hoping to eliminate the inapts through consumption?
What do you think of the situation in the Balkans? I think the Russians should keep an eye on there!
https://geopolitiq.substack.com/p/the-balkans-on-the-brink-of-explosion?r=25fc37
This stuff has been going on for awhile, instigated by the usual suspects, (Color Revolutions Are US!)
Russia is well aware, and Vucic was at the Moscow victory parade. He and Putin are close.
I knew definitively how this would end in 2022. And said a year ago the US had already lost WWIII in Ukraine and the Middle East. And would be retreating to Fortress America. All is now happening as it must. Thanks be to God.
I have a ROK award from my time over there. They are very emotive in their language. "Blood-tied ally" and such.
You gotta respect NK for having the balls to issue a declaration like that. Real friendship
Remember how Kim responded when Trump went to visit him? I think the Norks are appreciative of anyone who doesn't disrespect them and try to hurt them. Russia appreciates them and is their neighbor.
Sanctions against NK and Cuba for decades have just hurt those people, and for what? Because we didn't get to win or change the leader?
Notice that nobody is daring fire even a single bullter into NK.
Meanwhile Russia is a place everyone can bomb whenever they feel like, safe in the knowledge there will be no retaliation.
Why those differential outcomes?
Because what the West wants is control. "Rules based order" and "democracy" mean nothing to them, it's just the pathetic excuse for stealing resources, installing puppet governments, and trying to isolate any country they can't easily put under their thumb.
The MIC is a big grift. That's why they need to conjure up enemies, who they don't really want to fight, just surround with lots of threats, keeping the MIC churning.
Russia is where they screwed up. They really thought the sanctions and pressure would break Russia and that the rest of the world would fall in line with isolation.
How many times in history has a powerful and arrogant force been brought back to earth by attacking Russia? Russia will retaliate, but in their own way and own time. They have patience and know it's not the citizens but a select group behind these attacks.