What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a golden opportunity for the west to destroy Russia to rebuild it as the Lebensraum the Germans always wanted. It was going in this way pre-Bolshevik revolution, and could get back onto that track once they last vestiges of the Soviet era are removed. This is why the west is particularly giving no quarter to anyone that trades with Russia. This is about rebuilding Europe and in a way really winning the Cold War; a hundred plus year effort.

A Russia had is dependent on China is not in the western interest, so Russian regime change is what Biden let slip, after which Russia can be let into the western fold as envisioned under Yeltsin.

Yup. A Lebensraum! A vast land with relatively few people and full of resources!! And now a land with a sickly, cold, grey, ageing, and suffocating society. But why single out Germany? Napoleon also tried that. Hitler was not an aberration or alone. Antisemitism, racial superiority, perhaps even hatred of the Eastern Orthodox Christianity, as well as eying Russia's natural resources, were not limited to Germany. Hitler reflected a broader, perhaps subconscious, European mindset! Never forget how many Europeans willingly and actively collaborated with Hitler--that aspect of history has been being downplayed, but Jews still know them the best because they suffered the Christians for centuries.

The Brits only challenged the Germans because the Germans were an immediate and big threat. Americans saw an opportunity to rise to the very top, while also making some money along the way and joined but later. But race, resources and religious prejudices were all too prevalent in the West in general then--as perhaps even now.

BUT.... I still think this war was provoked and not needed. A post-Putin Russia would have fallen organically with Europe, especially from the west of the Urals. I blame the killing on the Neocons sitting in America always looking for some war to profit from.
 
That's not even his speech to begin with. That's a direct quote from the link he quoted......

To which I ask, where did it say the US and UK did not fulfil their duty to assure Ukrainian security?
Am willing to go out on a limb and say that at this point, Russia is essentially defeated. Ukraine have been the near perfect example/executor of "The People's War", meaning not just on the physical battlefields but also on fronts that we never really considered, such as economics and finance. It does not mean that we can stop sending Ukraine military aids, but now given how creative the Ukrainians have been with what we sent so far, particularly the anti-tank weapons, as long as they get ways to remove Russian armor from the fight, the Ukrainian Army seems to be able to take on the Russian Army on their own.
 
Am willing to go out on a limb and say that at this point, Russia is essentially defeated. Ukraine have been the near perfect example/executor of "The People's War", meaning not just on the physical battlefields but also on fronts that we never really considered, such as economics and finance. It does not mean that we can stop sending Ukraine military aids, but now given how creative the Ukrainians have been with what we sent so far, particularly the anti-tank weapons, as long as they get ways to remove Russian armor from the fight, the Ukrainian Army seems to be able to take on the Russian Army on their own.
Russia is truly defeated in this war if they loose the land corridor between Crimea and Donbass along the Ukrainian coast line. But untless that happens, Putin's spin doctors will be able to convince their public that Russia won. Perception afterall is reality :undecided:
 
Last edited:
So you want to start WW3 because of Ukraine??

In modern politics, the separation between "you have to" and "you need to" is just how you see a line. Just because the West need to intervene, does not mean it have to, especially when there are multiple way to achieve the same goal.

As I said, there are no where in that memorandum saying the US and UK HAVE to guarantee Ukrainian security in a certain way. So, it is up to the United States and United Kingdom to determine what is the best way to secure Ukrainian Security.
relations with Russia, including a promise to Ukraine to join NATO, the European Union's foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said Friday.

“I am ready to admit that we made a number of mistakes and that we lost the possibility of Russia’s rapprochement with the West," he said in an interview aired on the TF1 television channel. "There are moments that we could do better, there are things that we proposed and then could not implement, such as, for example, the promise that Ukraine and Georgia will become part of NATO."
Now that the United States is afraid of starting World War III, why did it promise Ukraine to join NATO? The best way for the United States to ensure the security of Ukraine is to make Ukraine unsafe.
 
I thought the Russians would have closely watched and learned lessons from the recent Armenia-Azerbaijan war and seen how drones and anti-tank missiles made the difference there.
This war just confirms what I had thought for a long time: Russia is a paper tiger and even if they eventually prevail in Ukraine to make enough strategic gains, they used their poor soldiers as cannon fodders. So sad.
Learning is a workout, which needs discipline and rational thinking, not given in Russia. Oppression never worked out !
 

American Colonel calling for a roll back of VETO system in UNSC. As counterintuitive as it may seem, this may be the only way for western alliance to further their agenda in UN. 🤔
When a country attacks another removal of veto right would work for passing Un solutions more easily to dampen out the attacking party at least by economic measures. It would work for example in issues like Usa wont be able to veto measures passed against future conflicts regarding Israel and similar.

On the other side of the coin removal of veto right would give way for a dominant country(ex:Usa) to pour in money to create internal problems in some target country and use its ties or economic-military threats to gain majority in Un and make Un pass military intervention decisions against any country they want. Sort of like cheating by using economic hegemony to get majority votes and using ethnic-secterian divides in some target country to create problems to be solved as military opportunities by using Un as a tool after hiding behind Russia-Ukraine conflict to remove veto system completely. Veto wielding country numbers should increase for blocking future wars regarding countries internal matters as well as the economic measures should be inversely proportional to outside countries non-Un voted interferences to a targeted country's internal problems. veto should also exist for economic measures regarding internal issues as they build up the decisions can be used as an excuse for unilateral action by a dominant country bypassing Un.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom