I think its all about money , the EU and UK were happy going along with increasing trade with Russia and China until the USA decided it was time to be belligerant they sensed a withdrawal by an increasing number of countries across the world from using the USA dollar to trade and decided as it always does that negotiation should be ignored in favour of heavy handed threats , tariffs , sanctions and military action.
Yes the USA do now recognise they cannot defeat Russia and China militarily especially if Russia and China team up with India and others to form BRICS so the USA have decided to tackle those countries in other ways , smaller countries and those close to USA will be threatened militarily but bigger foes will be attacked in other ways.
We hear a lot about how the USA destroyed the pipeline bringing cheap gas to EU and UK and how the USA then persuaded Ukraine to threaten Russia ( Ukraine joining NATO would threaten Russia by having USA missiles on the border of Ukraine Russia) and how the EU was then pressed into threatening Russia by USA withdrawing NATO funding , all of this has caused Russia to increase its spending hugely on defence which simultaneously reduces Russia,s ability to counteract the control USA has of global trade.
Job done for USA without going to war.
We do not hear how similarly China has had its trade with the EU and UK cut dramatically , virtually overnight amazon and others stopped selling goods produced in China and likewise China is having to dramatically increase its defense spending because of AUKUS this is similar to the threat of Ukraine joining NATO which is causing huge spending on arms by Russia , the Chinese are having to spend hugely on arms to ready themselves for the threat of nuclear submarines that Australia has agreed to have with the help of UK and USA , these subs will be based in Australia and will sail up and down the Sea of China along the coast of China.
I should probably mention Iran too , it is being threatened because of its strategic importance not just its coast on the straights of hormuz but its northern border on the Caspain Sea which is important for the planned direct road route from China to europe , the USA want to prevent such a road and are already active in persuading and threatening other countries that such a road would pass through such as Turkmenistan , Azerbaijan , Armenia.
The capital city of Iran is in the north close to the Caspian Sea and far from the straits of hormuz yes its not beyond the reach of the USA armada but the USA would not be able to conduct a prolonged offensive that way .
Anyway the picture is set , the USA wants control of global trade it wants to continue to control finance and the use of the USA dollar and it will use a combination of methods , attacking orher countries directly , getting other countries attacked by their neighbours using threats and bribes , tariffs , sanctions , oil,
The West and Europe have gone spiritually downhill since 1991, since the soviet threat was the only thing that put some sense into their heads .
For me who as a teenager believed in the european unification dream , witnessing the increasing foolishness that took hold of the european elites in the last 20 years has been a heartbreaker .
Should European countries really "retain as much political and security autonomy as possible"? They have provided numerous examples over the centuries that they use this "autonomy" to harass their own populations and attack other states. Europe and its "sovereign states" seem rather unnecessary units, in my opinion. They could gladly give up their sovereignty and continue to exist as a tourist attraction, managed by more responsible people — like Russians, for example. 🙂
Surely the original Euro plan was quite clearly stated -- squeeze Russia via proxy Ukraine until unstable Russia fell apart and the City of London could step in and buy up the whole place on the cheap. (Presumably China was not going to take advantage of this putative Russian collapse faster & better than the Euros?). The question is -- What to do now that Euro plan has clearly failed?
The President Trump plan is clear -- kick Zelensky to the side, and re-establish normal commercial relations with Russia; sorry about all the unpleasantness! However, the Trump plan cannot work when it is directly opposed by Europe's "leaders" and many of the unrepresentative CongressScum in the US Congress. Maybe the real attrition is whether Trump or the deeply unpopular EuroScum "leaders" crumble first?
And let's not leave China out of this. Because of Japan's forceful support for Taiwan, China has just cut off essential components to Japanese companies involved in military manufacturing. Those Japanese companies use Chinese components in the sub-assemblies which are essential to European and US weapons, which are the only weapons that keep Zelensky in the fight. When re-armament becomes practicably impossible, European "leaders" and US CongressScum will need a way out of the situation in which they have trapped themselves (and us).
I don't believe Europe's leaders are the problem. They are just puppets doing what their NATO masters tell them to do. The US president may have changed but the US army still has the same generals and these still share the same ideology as they had under Biden.
The resistance against Trump is no longer so open as in his first term. But using Zelensky and the Europeans it is just as effective.
Professor Linus Hagström at the Swedish Defense University, a fierce critic of EU and Swedish foreign policy, thinks it's about identity politics, not pragmatism or interests. Europeans (and Americans) believe themselves to be GOOD because they are white. And that's all of it. So they must stand together. And, if necessary, build up a wall against the rest of the world.
And, apparently, stick their heads into the ground.
Little do they realise, but they are not 'white' at all. Western Caucasians seem to range to anything from a pasty pink through shades of mauve to a deep purple, but white? No. (Some of these shades are deeply unattractive, especially when the wearer is annoyed). 😡
So I think this 'white' generalisation needs to be retired, along with its connotations of purity and goodness.
It’s an empirically meaningless category in historical terms — who gets to qualify is always contingent. Ask the Irish — you’re hard pressed to find a paler populace, yet they were routinely depicted as monkeys in the British press.
Real strategic thinking might lead Western European leaders to seek an alliance with Russia, accepting that would mean a degree of dependence and vulnerability that could be compensated for and hedged.
Rather than being seen as an error by Russia, the invasion was seen (hopefully by most governments) as a blatant breach of international law. We don't really want countries to invade others because the current leaderships differ on opinions, strategies and policies. Putin, in any case, didn't achieve the quick victory (of total annexation) that he seemed to be aiming for. Instead, he achieved the opposite of one of his goals, an increase in neighbours which are members of Nato, instead of a reduction (indeed, an outright victory would also have resulted in more Nato neighbours). Since the first year of the war, very little extra territory has been won by Russia at, according to independent estimates, a disproportionate cost in terms of soldiers' lives lost. I've been reading, in blogs, of imminent Russian victory for the last 3 years but it is still fighting and still bombing civilians in another country. Regardless of whether one sees Russia as the ultimate victor, or whether one thinks Putin has outfoxed other leaders, the "special military operation" is a clear breach of international law and so may have put the final nail in the coffin of the old world order. Perhaps we'll see countries imposing their will more widely in future. Is that a good thing?
Why does it seem it was total annexation he aimed for? Could you find one official Rus statement about this, as opposed to constant bleating from our NATO talking heads?.
Does this seem to be enough for taking over the largest country in Europe (after Russia)? Do you genuinely believe this?
Imminent victory? In June of 2022, after they came to terms that nothing could be achieved with negotiations, they started planning for at least 30 months of an attrition war. Again, could you point out to some official Russian statements, as opposed to constant bleating from our NATO talking heads?
It's what it seemed like to me, with the troops that were heading for Kyiv, the capital, early in the operation.
Of course I could be wrong but the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine, plus the protection of Russian speakers and ensuring it doesn't join Nato seems like it would need effective control of Ukraine. Has Putin ever said he wants Ukraine to be an independent sovereign nation after the special military operation? For Russia to achieve its aims, it clearly could not be that.
As far as "imminent victory" is concerned, I was referring to what a number of bloggers had been saying for years.
I do not think Rus need to control the whole Ukraine. Ukrainians are hostages to judeo-banderites. It is a western enabled open air, PMC concentration camp, where population is not homogeneous in its perception of Russia. There are real Ukrainian patriots who work with Russian special services against Zelensky's regime.
Moreover, Russia gave it a try with Ukrainian sovereignty, but Ukraine never really was sovereign. Soros explained how he meddled in Ukrainian affairs before independence, Nuland explained, in 2013 already, how US spent 5 billion in meddling in Ukraine since independence. Ukraine immediately became NATO partner, already in 1994. CIA asset Slava Stetsko was meddling in Ukraine immediately after the independence. Foreigners were given citizenship in order to take over Ukrainian ministries. Two US citizens-turned-UA-citizens were controlling finances (privatisation) and health (biolabs). Saakashvili, for example, was governenor of Odessa Oblast. Then we have USAID with official and black funds. On and on.
So, it was never a sovereign country, and I do not think that Russia will allow it to be compeltely sovereign now. At least for the time being. That ship has sailed. At the end of the day the end game is balkanization of Rus via UA as an iron fist.
OK, that's your opinion. Most nations would disagree with your last paragraph (and probably the rest of your comment). Should they go with your and Putin's opinion, do you think?
Lets put it this way then. Which country is really completely sovereign in today's globalised world? We could argue that at the moment USA is the most sovereign country, but not completely. Apparently China just threatened complete halt of rare earths in case of an attack on Iran. This would cause some proper problems to USA.
If we take a look at sovereignty from the perspective of autarky, if country would isolate itself from our global world, then Russia would be the most sovereign, but that is not how world rolls at the moment. Essentially there is no country that is completely sovereign.
We, back home, also fancy ourselves being sovereign, whereas any time that we plan on doing something and USA does not like, then US ambassador rectifies our mistakes. And that is an EU and NATO country, where sovereignty reigns supreme.
People propped up in Ukraine after the UA independence, and especially after the coup in 2014 were always somebody's pawns: from Habsburg empire, to Nazis, to CIA and now collective West. These are facts. If people do not like them that is not my problem.
Regarding the rest of my comment, it is not about agreeing or disagreeing, I can provide links to videos and articles and interviews where everything i wrote about is clearly stated. Soros talking to Zakaria, Nuland talking at the press conference, Slava Stestko going around UA parliament, Poroshenko going against UA courts and giving citizenship to foreigners so they could become part of the government, Samantha Power talking about money for UA from the USAID black funds, Nuland choosing Yastenyuk for PM position. (Yats is the guy"). On and on. Likewise for balkanization ideas - we have official documents stating it, Kaja Kallas is very fond of it. US already in 2022 organised balkanisation conference, that is US governmental entity organised a conference, can find it online.
It is not about opinions.
I think that Rus will absorb Novorossia and Malorossia east of Dnepr, do not knwo what to think about Kiev. Western Ukraine does not matter to Russia, but I think people might choose to join EU countries - Poland, Hungary, Romania.
You are using a different definition of sovereignty from most people, I think. Regardless of whether you think Ukraine deserves to be a nation-state, recognised as such by the UN (and, hence, all countries that are part of the UN, at least in principle), Russia was, and is, the aggressor. As it violated the UN charter, there should be consequences. There won't be, though, and it will no doubt gain something from its aggression, thus setting a precedent.
I can't really see how you could interpret what I wrote in that way. You even put your inferred premise in quotes as though I'd actually written that. I'd only stated that Russia has ended up with more Nato neighbours as a result of its actions. Something it appeared not to want.
So true. The West has gone stupid. And like all stupids, is blind to it.
"if you create impossible fantasy victory conditions and symbolically try to impose those on the Russians, then of course you can always claim that they have “lost.”"
A great article, but having looked at British rearmament in the 1930's I'd make a couple of observations. In the 1930s it is true that the British military modernised, but also that they inherited in 1918 (less than 20 years before) enough equipment from WW1 to equip c 100 divisions, and also the RN was the largest Navy in the world. Even so in 1930/31 defence spend reached a nadir of 2.7% of GDP, and even in the lean years if the mid-1930s was 3.2%. Defence spending only really accellerated after Munich. Compare this with the hot air of today, and at least the British have effectively demilitarised, partly though the so-called peace dividend since 1991, and latterly by stuff been blown to pieces in Ukraine. Most if not all other European nations too, and even the mighty USA is sufferring critcal shortages (eg AA missiles). And the industrial and technological capacity has - if not vanished - been much reduced. Let's not even get into the downgrading of tradtional masculine martial values. If you were intending to "re-arm", I wouldn't start from here...
The latest announcements from Kremlin, by Putin himself, is that Russian services think that the West (put there whoever, UK, France, CIA) is thinking to pass nuclear devices to Ukraine and present it as locally built as well as blowing up the Turkstream on the floor of the Black Sea, which is several times deeper than the Baltic Sea.
I am not sure what the west thinks, but I am convinced that the Russians will act in a very dramatic way if its territory is explicitly and directly attacked by western forces. No repeat of WWII for them. If London or Paris or Berlin have to go up in smoke under the mushroom cloud, so be it...
Let's take a step back and have a bit of a bird view. Basically you are asking Russia to behave likeke assholes, the way the West and US or Israeli behave, no? Maybe Russians do not have this mentality, maybe they didn't have the resources to start with, maybe is a political decision to not alienate the rest (majority) of the world, maybe a bit of all three. But I would not call it dithering and indecision.
They want not to be assholes and win, like they did in WWII against the Nazis. It was with great sacrifices, but they weren't completely assholes. The raped German women lived to tell the story (which was then likely exagerated) but the raped Russian women only got a bullet in their heads after the deed was done. And their stories of winning are more honest and less embellished than what for instance Israeli tell themselves - oh we are the chosen people, oh everyone is after us, or Americans, oh no taxation without representation, when the upset was that those taxes were not used for wars against the indjuns, to take their lands. How do you think Washington made his fortune...? Why do you think the three ships burned in Boston were attacked by "indians"...?
There is a difference between being nice and not being an asshole. I did not say the Soviets played nice. You are really making shit up and you deserve to have the catnip taken away from you, bad cat!
Combining the signal that EU/Britain has provided Ukraine with nuclear warheads along with the recent successful penetration of Russian air defenses by the British designed (& mostly EU component sourced) "Flamingo" certainly would change Russian Federation priorities for deploying their best short & medium range air defense systems, AWAY from supplying Iran and TOWARDS their own borders & strategically vital facilities? USA/NATO wouldn't even need to give the Ukrainians such weapons, just "leak" that they had done so.
What Iranian need is radars, EWs, and maybe some ADs, as well as intelligence, IRS, and integration. Chinese can provide some as well. As far as I remember, it was the Iranians that supplied the Russians in the past couple of years.
AFAIK, Iran never supplied the Russian Federation with cutting edge air defense missiles, definitely hasn't supplied them with air defense RADARS & sensors- Quite the reverse, in fact.
There were lots of claims about cheap fixed wing drone weapons supplied by Iran to the Russian Federation in the earlier years of this war, however, lately the RF claims to have taken over production of improved versions of such weapons themselves.
The major effects of Flamingo as I see it will probably be diverting more air defense assets to protect important infrastructure farther back from the line of contact (that need also requires diverting those units from export to allied nations).
IRS I think has to do with intelligence via remote sensing and satellites. Yes Russians got at the beginning the Shahed drones which they adapted into Geran-1 and -2.
Here we go again: the european plan is fairly obvious - use Ukrainians to soak up Russian munitions and pick off Russia's friends, one by one, declare open season on ships carrying Russian cargo, destroy Russian infrastructure with impunity, get Kiev WMDs, etc..
When Russia tries to make peace, NATO "peacekeepers" rush in while Ukraine acts as outrageously as possible to provoke a Russian response whereupon the british and french run screaming "Article Five!" to the Americans.
You've been declaring a premature end to the war for how long now, but unless and until the european rulers pay a price, that end never will come.
And yet it's the europeans screaming for more more more.
As for the “hapless europoodles”, that’s not how the european politicians see themselves. More that they hope to lever American military and economic power in pursuit of their own objectives. For most Americans it’s usual to regard the euros as the patsy. For the euros, it’s always been the other way round.
Thank you again. So, supposing what you describe in the last few paragraphs does not happen in the three most important European countries - UK, France and Germany - which is by far the most likely outcome, what then? Will ordering various items of new military equipment more or less at random and frequently snarling impotently at Russia, actually make no difference or will it lead to some sort of calamity that could have been avoided?
“Foch, the greatest General of the War, understood this, and began to build an attrition machine which would eventually defeat the Germans, but he was sacked before the end of the War precisely because it all didn’t seem to be happening quickly enough.”
Foch continued as Supreme Allied Commander through the Armistice. His office was disestablished in January 1920. He was not “sacked before the end of the war.”
Foch was sacked as Commander of Army Group North after Artois and the Somme. He returned to a position of responsibility as Chief of the General Staff about six months later, but that was not a command post.
Oil, lets be clear , most oul is used to produce diesel , peteol is a by product , diesel is required for all sorts of engines in prticular aeroplanes and farm machinery i think about 70% of oil is used for diesel.The USA wants Venezuelas heavy oil so it can combine it with the USA,s own light shale oul to make diesel this combination would make USA the biggest supplier of diesel.
I think its all about money , the EU and UK were happy going along with increasing trade with Russia and China until the USA decided it was time to be belligerant they sensed a withdrawal by an increasing number of countries across the world from using the USA dollar to trade and decided as it always does that negotiation should be ignored in favour of heavy handed threats , tariffs , sanctions and military action.
Yes the USA do now recognise they cannot defeat Russia and China militarily especially if Russia and China team up with India and others to form BRICS so the USA have decided to tackle those countries in other ways , smaller countries and those close to USA will be threatened militarily but bigger foes will be attacked in other ways.
We hear a lot about how the USA destroyed the pipeline bringing cheap gas to EU and UK and how the USA then persuaded Ukraine to threaten Russia ( Ukraine joining NATO would threaten Russia by having USA missiles on the border of Ukraine Russia) and how the EU was then pressed into threatening Russia by USA withdrawing NATO funding , all of this has caused Russia to increase its spending hugely on defence which simultaneously reduces Russia,s ability to counteract the control USA has of global trade.
Job done for USA without going to war.
We do not hear how similarly China has had its trade with the EU and UK cut dramatically , virtually overnight amazon and others stopped selling goods produced in China and likewise China is having to dramatically increase its defense spending because of AUKUS this is similar to the threat of Ukraine joining NATO which is causing huge spending on arms by Russia , the Chinese are having to spend hugely on arms to ready themselves for the threat of nuclear submarines that Australia has agreed to have with the help of UK and USA , these subs will be based in Australia and will sail up and down the Sea of China along the coast of China.
I should probably mention Iran too , it is being threatened because of its strategic importance not just its coast on the straights of hormuz but its northern border on the Caspain Sea which is important for the planned direct road route from China to europe , the USA want to prevent such a road and are already active in persuading and threatening other countries that such a road would pass through such as Turkmenistan , Azerbaijan , Armenia.
The capital city of Iran is in the north close to the Caspian Sea and far from the straits of hormuz yes its not beyond the reach of the USA armada but the USA would not be able to conduct a prolonged offensive that way .
Anyway the picture is set , the USA wants control of global trade it wants to continue to control finance and the use of the USA dollar and it will use a combination of methods , attacking orher countries directly , getting other countries attacked by their neighbours using threats and bribes , tariffs , sanctions , oil,
The West and Europe have gone spiritually downhill since 1991, since the soviet threat was the only thing that put some sense into their heads .
For me who as a teenager believed in the european unification dream , witnessing the increasing foolishness that took hold of the european elites in the last 20 years has been a heartbreaker .
Should European countries really "retain as much political and security autonomy as possible"? They have provided numerous examples over the centuries that they use this "autonomy" to harass their own populations and attack other states. Europe and its "sovereign states" seem rather unnecessary units, in my opinion. They could gladly give up their sovereignty and continue to exist as a tourist attraction, managed by more responsible people — like Russians, for example. 🙂
Surely the original Euro plan was quite clearly stated -- squeeze Russia via proxy Ukraine until unstable Russia fell apart and the City of London could step in and buy up the whole place on the cheap. (Presumably China was not going to take advantage of this putative Russian collapse faster & better than the Euros?). The question is -- What to do now that Euro plan has clearly failed?
The President Trump plan is clear -- kick Zelensky to the side, and re-establish normal commercial relations with Russia; sorry about all the unpleasantness! However, the Trump plan cannot work when it is directly opposed by Europe's "leaders" and many of the unrepresentative CongressScum in the US Congress. Maybe the real attrition is whether Trump or the deeply unpopular EuroScum "leaders" crumble first?
And let's not leave China out of this. Because of Japan's forceful support for Taiwan, China has just cut off essential components to Japanese companies involved in military manufacturing. Those Japanese companies use Chinese components in the sub-assemblies which are essential to European and US weapons, which are the only weapons that keep Zelensky in the fight. When re-armament becomes practicably impossible, European "leaders" and US CongressScum will need a way out of the situation in which they have trapped themselves (and us).
I don't believe Europe's leaders are the problem. They are just puppets doing what their NATO masters tell them to do. The US president may have changed but the US army still has the same generals and these still share the same ideology as they had under Biden.
The resistance against Trump is no longer so open as in his first term. But using Zelensky and the Europeans it is just as effective.
Perhaps "being a member of Nato" is THE strategy?
Professor Linus Hagström at the Swedish Defense University, a fierce critic of EU and Swedish foreign policy, thinks it's about identity politics, not pragmatism or interests. Europeans (and Americans) believe themselves to be GOOD because they are white. And that's all of it. So they must stand together. And, if necessary, build up a wall against the rest of the world.
And, apparently, stick their heads into the ground.
Little do they realise, but they are not 'white' at all. Western Caucasians seem to range to anything from a pasty pink through shades of mauve to a deep purple, but white? No. (Some of these shades are deeply unattractive, especially when the wearer is annoyed). 😡
So I think this 'white' generalisation needs to be retired, along with its connotations of purity and goodness.
It’s an empirically meaningless category in historical terms — who gets to qualify is always contingent. Ask the Irish — you’re hard pressed to find a paler populace, yet they were routinely depicted as monkeys in the British press.
Doesn't matter, it's an emotional thing. No logics or facts, please!
Real strategic thinking might lead Western European leaders to seek an alliance with Russia, accepting that would mean a degree of dependence and vulnerability that could be compensated for and hedged.
Rather than being seen as an error by Russia, the invasion was seen (hopefully by most governments) as a blatant breach of international law. We don't really want countries to invade others because the current leaderships differ on opinions, strategies and policies. Putin, in any case, didn't achieve the quick victory (of total annexation) that he seemed to be aiming for. Instead, he achieved the opposite of one of his goals, an increase in neighbours which are members of Nato, instead of a reduction (indeed, an outright victory would also have resulted in more Nato neighbours). Since the first year of the war, very little extra territory has been won by Russia at, according to independent estimates, a disproportionate cost in terms of soldiers' lives lost. I've been reading, in blogs, of imminent Russian victory for the last 3 years but it is still fighting and still bombing civilians in another country. Regardless of whether one sees Russia as the ultimate victor, or whether one thinks Putin has outfoxed other leaders, the "special military operation" is a clear breach of international law and so may have put the final nail in the coffin of the old world order. Perhaps we'll see countries imposing their will more widely in future. Is that a good thing?
Why does it seem it was total annexation he aimed for? Could you find one official Rus statement about this, as opposed to constant bleating from our NATO talking heads?.
According to Syrsky himself ("Their original 100,000-strong invasion force...", https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/24/i-know-we-will-win-and-how-ukraines-top-general-on-turning-the-tables-against-russia ), Rus went in with cca 100k troops on a LOC of 3000 km. There were cca 20k around Kiev.
Does this seem to be enough for taking over the largest country in Europe (after Russia)? Do you genuinely believe this?
Imminent victory? In June of 2022, after they came to terms that nothing could be achieved with negotiations, they started planning for at least 30 months of an attrition war. Again, could you point out to some official Russian statements, as opposed to constant bleating from our NATO talking heads?
It's what it seemed like to me, with the troops that were heading for Kyiv, the capital, early in the operation.
Of course I could be wrong but the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine, plus the protection of Russian speakers and ensuring it doesn't join Nato seems like it would need effective control of Ukraine. Has Putin ever said he wants Ukraine to be an independent sovereign nation after the special military operation? For Russia to achieve its aims, it clearly could not be that.
As far as "imminent victory" is concerned, I was referring to what a number of bloggers had been saying for years.
I do not think Rus need to control the whole Ukraine. Ukrainians are hostages to judeo-banderites. It is a western enabled open air, PMC concentration camp, where population is not homogeneous in its perception of Russia. There are real Ukrainian patriots who work with Russian special services against Zelensky's regime.
Moreover, Russia gave it a try with Ukrainian sovereignty, but Ukraine never really was sovereign. Soros explained how he meddled in Ukrainian affairs before independence, Nuland explained, in 2013 already, how US spent 5 billion in meddling in Ukraine since independence. Ukraine immediately became NATO partner, already in 1994. CIA asset Slava Stetsko was meddling in Ukraine immediately after the independence. Foreigners were given citizenship in order to take over Ukrainian ministries. Two US citizens-turned-UA-citizens were controlling finances (privatisation) and health (biolabs). Saakashvili, for example, was governenor of Odessa Oblast. Then we have USAID with official and black funds. On and on.
So, it was never a sovereign country, and I do not think that Russia will allow it to be compeltely sovereign now. At least for the time being. That ship has sailed. At the end of the day the end game is balkanization of Rus via UA as an iron fist.
OK, that's your opinion. Most nations would disagree with your last paragraph (and probably the rest of your comment). Should they go with your and Putin's opinion, do you think?
Lets put it this way then. Which country is really completely sovereign in today's globalised world? We could argue that at the moment USA is the most sovereign country, but not completely. Apparently China just threatened complete halt of rare earths in case of an attack on Iran. This would cause some proper problems to USA.
If we take a look at sovereignty from the perspective of autarky, if country would isolate itself from our global world, then Russia would be the most sovereign, but that is not how world rolls at the moment. Essentially there is no country that is completely sovereign.
We, back home, also fancy ourselves being sovereign, whereas any time that we plan on doing something and USA does not like, then US ambassador rectifies our mistakes. And that is an EU and NATO country, where sovereignty reigns supreme.
People propped up in Ukraine after the UA independence, and especially after the coup in 2014 were always somebody's pawns: from Habsburg empire, to Nazis, to CIA and now collective West. These are facts. If people do not like them that is not my problem.
Regarding the rest of my comment, it is not about agreeing or disagreeing, I can provide links to videos and articles and interviews where everything i wrote about is clearly stated. Soros talking to Zakaria, Nuland talking at the press conference, Slava Stestko going around UA parliament, Poroshenko going against UA courts and giving citizenship to foreigners so they could become part of the government, Samantha Power talking about money for UA from the USAID black funds, Nuland choosing Yastenyuk for PM position. (Yats is the guy"). On and on. Likewise for balkanization ideas - we have official documents stating it, Kaja Kallas is very fond of it. US already in 2022 organised balkanisation conference, that is US governmental entity organised a conference, can find it online.
It is not about opinions.
I think that Rus will absorb Novorossia and Malorossia east of Dnepr, do not knwo what to think about Kiev. Western Ukraine does not matter to Russia, but I think people might choose to join EU countries - Poland, Hungary, Romania.
But who am I?
You are using a different definition of sovereignty from most people, I think. Regardless of whether you think Ukraine deserves to be a nation-state, recognised as such by the UN (and, hence, all countries that are part of the UN, at least in principle), Russia was, and is, the aggressor. As it violated the UN charter, there should be consequences. There won't be, though, and it will no doubt gain something from its aggression, thus setting a precedent.
I am amused by your implied premise that “more NATO members equals a stronger alliance.”
I can't really see how you could interpret what I wrote in that way. You even put your inferred premise in quotes as though I'd actually written that. I'd only stated that Russia has ended up with more Nato neighbours as a result of its actions. Something it appeared not to want.
So true. The West has gone stupid. And like all stupids, is blind to it.
"if you create impossible fantasy victory conditions and symbolically try to impose those on the Russians, then of course you can always claim that they have “lost.”"
Haha. Perfect.
A great article, but having looked at British rearmament in the 1930's I'd make a couple of observations. In the 1930s it is true that the British military modernised, but also that they inherited in 1918 (less than 20 years before) enough equipment from WW1 to equip c 100 divisions, and also the RN was the largest Navy in the world. Even so in 1930/31 defence spend reached a nadir of 2.7% of GDP, and even in the lean years if the mid-1930s was 3.2%. Defence spending only really accellerated after Munich. Compare this with the hot air of today, and at least the British have effectively demilitarised, partly though the so-called peace dividend since 1991, and latterly by stuff been blown to pieces in Ukraine. Most if not all other European nations too, and even the mighty USA is sufferring critcal shortages (eg AA missiles). And the industrial and technological capacity has - if not vanished - been much reduced. Let's not even get into the downgrading of tradtional masculine martial values. If you were intending to "re-arm", I wouldn't start from here...
The latest announcements from Kremlin, by Putin himself, is that Russian services think that the West (put there whoever, UK, France, CIA) is thinking to pass nuclear devices to Ukraine and present it as locally built as well as blowing up the Turkstream on the floor of the Black Sea, which is several times deeper than the Baltic Sea.
I am not sure what the west thinks, but I am convinced that the Russians will act in a very dramatic way if its territory is explicitly and directly attacked by western forces. No repeat of WWII for them. If London or Paris or Berlin have to go up in smoke under the mushroom cloud, so be it...
The fruits of Russian dithering and indecision, right there.
Let's take a step back and have a bit of a bird view. Basically you are asking Russia to behave likeke assholes, the way the West and US or Israeli behave, no? Maybe Russians do not have this mentality, maybe they didn't have the resources to start with, maybe is a political decision to not alienate the rest (majority) of the world, maybe a bit of all three. But I would not call it dithering and indecision.
Does Russia want to be nice or do they want to win?
There are different ways to victory. No need for everybody to be a US-like scum. One is enough in this world. lmao
Since Russia hasn't won and is further from victory than it was four years ago, you might not want to count your chickens before they hatch.
SMO is still underway. Simmer down.
They want not to be assholes and win, like they did in WWII against the Nazis. It was with great sacrifices, but they weren't completely assholes. The raped German women lived to tell the story (which was then likely exagerated) but the raped Russian women only got a bullet in their heads after the deed was done. And their stories of winning are more honest and less embellished than what for instance Israeli tell themselves - oh we are the chosen people, oh everyone is after us, or Americans, oh no taxation without representation, when the upset was that those taxes were not used for wars against the indjuns, to take their lands. How do you think Washington made his fortune...? Why do you think the three ships burned in Boston were attacked by "indians"...?
The Soviets were playing nice?!?
Otherwise, you stray from the point.
There is a difference between being nice and not being an asshole. I did not say the Soviets played nice. You are really making shit up and you deserve to have the catnip taken away from you, bad cat!
Well done, Feral. Amusement value 7/10. You lose some marks for repetition.
Hmmm. Denying what, exactly?
@Kouros
Combining the signal that EU/Britain has provided Ukraine with nuclear warheads along with the recent successful penetration of Russian air defenses by the British designed (& mostly EU component sourced) "Flamingo" certainly would change Russian Federation priorities for deploying their best short & medium range air defense systems, AWAY from supplying Iran and TOWARDS their own borders & strategically vital facilities? USA/NATO wouldn't even need to give the Ukrainians such weapons, just "leak" that they had done so.
What Iranian need is radars, EWs, and maybe some ADs, as well as intelligence, IRS, and integration. Chinese can provide some as well. As far as I remember, it was the Iranians that supplied the Russians in the past couple of years.
@The Freeze-Frame Revolution
Please disambiguate "IRS"?
AFAIK, Iran never supplied the Russian Federation with cutting edge air defense missiles, definitely hasn't supplied them with air defense RADARS & sensors- Quite the reverse, in fact.
There were lots of claims about cheap fixed wing drone weapons supplied by Iran to the Russian Federation in the earlier years of this war, however, lately the RF claims to have taken over production of improved versions of such weapons themselves.
The major effects of Flamingo as I see it will probably be diverting more air defense assets to protect important infrastructure farther back from the line of contact (that need also requires diverting those units from export to allied nations).
IRS I think has to do with intelligence via remote sensing and satellites. Yes Russians got at the beginning the Shahed drones which they adapted into Geran-1 and -2.
Thanks for the reply-
I'm used to seeing that in a different order, ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance). Usually means satellite intelligence.
Here we go again: the european plan is fairly obvious - use Ukrainians to soak up Russian munitions and pick off Russia's friends, one by one, declare open season on ships carrying Russian cargo, destroy Russian infrastructure with impunity, get Kiev WMDs, etc..
When Russia tries to make peace, NATO "peacekeepers" rush in while Ukraine acts as outrageously as possible to provoke a Russian response whereupon the british and french run screaming "Article Five!" to the Americans.
You've been declaring a premature end to the war for how long now, but unless and until the european rulers pay a price, that end never will come.
It is American led war on Russia, stop blaming others.
"Europeans want US to fight their war", it is US war, directed by US from Wiesbaden.
Cut this constant crap.
And yet it's the europeans screaming for more more more.
As for the “hapless europoodles”, that’s not how the european politicians see themselves. More that they hope to lever American military and economic power in pursuit of their own objectives. For most Americans it’s usual to regard the euros as the patsy. For the euros, it’s always been the other way round.
US lead military coalition, waging yet another war on Russia.
Cut the crap with daily salto mortale.
Your statement is so vague as to be unfalsifiable.
Thank you again. So, supposing what you describe in the last few paragraphs does not happen in the three most important European countries - UK, France and Germany - which is by far the most likely outcome, what then? Will ordering various items of new military equipment more or less at random and frequently snarling impotently at Russia, actually make no difference or will it lead to some sort of calamity that could have been avoided?
A description of the state of Europe, and the action in the Ukraine, which as far as I can see, adheres closely to reality. Thanks A.
The problem is even simpler: the West is captured in a mental cage from which Russia “must not be treated as a normal country.”
Until this becomes possible again, everything is one species of futility or other.
“Foch, the greatest General of the War, understood this, and began to build an attrition machine which would eventually defeat the Germans, but he was sacked before the end of the War precisely because it all didn’t seem to be happening quickly enough.”
Foch continued as Supreme Allied Commander through the Armistice. His office was disestablished in January 1920. He was not “sacked before the end of the war.”
Foch was sacked as Commander of Army Group North after Artois and the Somme. He returned to a position of responsibility as Chief of the General Staff about six months later, but that was not a command post.
Oil, lets be clear , most oul is used to produce diesel , peteol is a by product , diesel is required for all sorts of engines in prticular aeroplanes and farm machinery i think about 70% of oil is used for diesel.The USA wants Venezuelas heavy oil so it can combine it with the USA,s own light shale oul to make diesel this combination would make USA the biggest supplier of diesel.