Professor John Mearsheimer is the man who predicted the Ukraine crisis. In a new, must-watch video discussion with the American Committee for U.S.-Russia Accord, he explains why the West’s current strategy is so dangerous.
Mearsheimer begins by noting that “what we have here is a war between the United States and Russia”. Wait, isn’t this a war between Ukraine and Russia? Yes it is, insofar as all the combatants are from those two countries (aside from a few mercenaries and foreign volunteers).
But just because there aren’t U.S. troops on the ground, doesn’t mean that country isn’t deeply involved in the conflict – to the extent that one can speak of a ‘proxy war’ between the U.S. and Russia. The argument is laid out in these two articles by the journalist Aaron Maté, who says “the U.S. provoked Putin’s war”.
Both of Maté’s articles are worth reading in full, but here are some of the most relevant facts:
• Prior to the 2014 Western-backed coup, a phone call was leaked in which two U.S. officials (Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt) explicitly discuss whom they’re going to install in the next Ukrainian Government.
• In 2017, Senator Lindsay Graham told a group of Ukrainian soldiers, “Your fight is our fight. 2017 will be the year of offence.” Likewise, Senator John McCain said, “We are with you, your fight is our fight and we will win together.”
• In 2019, the RAND Corporation examined options that the U.S. could pursue to “overextend and unbalance” Russia’s economy and armed forces. It concluded that “Providing lethal aid to Ukraine” would yield high benefits by exploiting “Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability”.
• In January of 2020, the Congressman Adam Schiff openly stated, “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
• In February of 2022, Zelensky’s former National Security Advisor revealed to Time magazine that Zelensky’s decision in February of last year to shut down three pro-Russian TV stations was “calculated to fit in with the U.S. agenda”.
• In addition to sending billions of dollars of military aid to Ukraine, the U.S. spent years training the country’s armed forces, and has been providing ‘real time’ battlefield intelligence since the conflict began.
Returning to John Mearsheimer’s comments, he says the war in Ukraine is “the most dangerous crisis since the Second World War” and is actually “more dangerous than the Cuban crisis” owing to the risk of nuclear escalation. But why is there a genuine risk of nuclear escalation?
The reason is that Putin and many Russians perceive NATO expansion into Ukraine as an “existential threat” to Russia. Many Western commentators dispute that the expansion is such an existential threat. But what they think is “irrelevant”, says Mearsheimer, because “the only thing that matters is what Putin and his fellow Russians think”.
From Putin’s point of view, therefore, “he cannot lose”. In other words, losing the war is simply not an option. Meanwhile, the U.S. and its NATO allies are banking on a total Russian defeat, up to and including regime change. They have decided, “we have to win”.
And when two nuclear-armed powers each decide that losing is not an option, the risk of nuclear escalation rises considerably. Note: even if the risk of nuclear escalation is only, say, 10%, that’s still a disturbingly high chance of such a catastrophic outcome.
Shouldn’t we be doing what we can to reach a compromise, even if that involves concessions to Russia like recognising Crimea and ruling out NATO membership for Ukraine? Simply waiting for Russia to lose, and hoping there’s no a nuclear war, doesn’t seem like a very good strategy.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Apart from Mearsheimer – Steven Cohen died last year – there are almost no voices calling for any type of talk or compromise between the US and Russia. This is in stark contrast to the 1970s or the 1980s. To talk of peace is to open yourself up to charges of being “Putin’s lapdog” or worse.
The fundamental point is it not is that Western governments and Western media hide the truth from people an if they didn’t they would not have support, and the know it?
Sorry, wrote the above in a rush:
‘The fundamental point is it not is that Western governments and Western media hide the truth from people and if they didn’t they would not have support from them -and they know it.’
Most people now live in a world of virtual facts. It is dismaying to see journalists who were actually critical of lockdowns and forced vaccination stoking uncritically the conflict in Ukraine – they actually want it to be worse rather than better. But why would the British electorate need a war in Ukraine. How much do they care about justice in other of the world’s hotspots?
Well anyway congratulations at least to Noah Carl and the Daily Sceptic for telling us what we should be able to hear and read in the MSM. It just comes down to people lying for criminal advantage, and these days it is much more common than telling the truth.
Hardly surprising that journalists want a situation to be worse, rather than better.
I thought they were supposed to at least try to be ‘objective ‘or is that terribly old-fashioned and non-woke ( like ‘truth’)?
Can someone explain what particular “Dog” we have in the Ukrainian “Fight” we are tipping vast sums of our paid taxes into on Johnson’s whim while fuelling both the fires of war and destruction and our own inflation – all for whose benefit?
( Guess: Those who live in luxury many miles from the Ukraine, who live in pretentious Gilded Palaces surrounded by Armed Guards).
The lying start at the top. We have “experts” involved!
‘Hitting the mean’ is all out favour in the mass media. Hitting out and being mean on the other hand, especially when in the direction of the interests of sponsors and advertisers, seems to be all the rage.
The fact that their ultra-partisan messaging might result in nuclear war either completely bypasses their empty brains, or they don’t care. Either way such utter failure in the marshmallow test does not augur well for them. There will be no advertising left, nor sponsorship, nor potentially any internet in a nuclear attack, a factor which appears to have escaped their microscopic brains.
You assume USA wants compromise. Why would it in a war it provoked and thinks it can win?
What compromise exactly would Russia have to accept… not withdrawal from Ukraine, because that’s not what the USA wants. It wants economic and military degradation of Russia to render it equivalent to some Third World Country. The longer Russia is engaged in Ukraine which is supported by the USA, the more it is believed Russia will bleed and the USA’s war aim will be met.
Gary Kasparov has literally (from his safe haven in New York) called for sending Russia back to the Stone Age – a position which is far more genocidalist than many statements that are so characterised. As the child of Armenian and Jewish parents, he can be presumed to know about genocide and this guy is clearly an exceptionally nasty piece of work.
An unusual piece of inspirational resistance, in these times of near universal kowtowing to bullying imo:
Ukrainian chess officials punish champions for refusing to sign letter demanding total ban on Russians
Respect to these girls for standing up for principle in the most difficult of circumstances.
On the other hand Putin is actually carrying out genocide.
Let’s focus more on that, rather than the theoretical interpretation of what someone is saying who has no actual involvement in the war.
Sincer when has killing Nazis been ruled genocide?
Brain dead ignorant comment.
No he isn’t.
Russo Ukrainian ‘exiles’ in the US/New York usually are – must be something in the water.
It doesn’t want to “win” it wants to destroy Russia steal its natural resources and create permanent chaos (see Libya Iraq and Syria).
Gee…Yes. Neo cons’ Regime change plan for Putin goes back pretty much after he got into power – because he’s a serious strategist with a big brain (yes ex kgb, super conservative and brutal – but that aint the point). Putin cannot lose not because of some weird war mongering but because Ukraine is the buffer state between east/west and was spiralling into hands of Nazis (planning a final solution against Donbass) and Nato and nuclear arms – so no brainer there. Russia offered Zelensky a peace deal via German chancellor BEFORE Russian military operation – https://21stcenturywire.com/2022/04/04/revealed-zelensky-was-offered-a-peace-deal-to-prevent-invasion-but-rejected-it/ too many gaps in your article
The ‘economic’ war may have a different outcome.
The Russian linking of commodity prices including basic energy resources to gold , with Chinese support is going to have a devastating effect on Europe and the US. Just look at how the ruble has risen back to pre-war levels and other commodity rich nations currencies have had double figure increases against the dollar. Saudi Arabia’s decision not to collapse the oil price but in fact help firm it up was a move in favour of Russia/China and against the US and the petro dollar as is its decision to price oil to China in yuan breaking the decades old agreement with the US to price only in dollars.
The world economy is splitting between commodity backed currencies and the anglosphere/EU financial based currencies. With its debt and dependency on Russia’s energy, the EU will be forced to split with US, you can already see this with Germany and Italy.
Who will win this war, the debt laden western economies dependent on financialisation, or the commodity and energy rich countries with little debt?
Sanctions are just harming the west’s own economies and citizens. The US can last out in this economic war far longer than Europe, but it too will start to hurt a lot. Which will break first? Russia due to physical threat or US due to financial and commodity threat?
Martin Lewis (see news roundup) is already warning of social unrest due to collapse in real incomes and the effect of the sanctions hasn’t yet kicked in.
“The Russian linking of commodity prices including basic energy resources to gold “
They haven’t done that.
https://cbr.ru/eng/press/pr/?file=07042022_175348ENG_PP08042022_104938.htm
The rouble has risen in value for the fairly obvious reason that there is nothing coming into Russia that requires settling in EUR or USD – due to sanctions – yet Gas is still being paid for in EUR and USD – yet Russian producers need RUB to pay their staff.
Supply and demand on the Moscow Exchange does the rest.
https://bullionexchanges.com/blog/russia-pegs-ruble-to-gold-what-does-that-mean-to-the-world-order/
Yes they have! They have said all purchases must be in rubles, and then linked ruble to gold. They will take gold directly if offered. The risk of Euro to Ruble exchange at the Gazprombank ( which continues to operate outside sanctions) lies completely with the buyer. As the ruble increases in value alongside gold ,the cost to buyer increases.
The USA is already finding ways around its own sanctions, quite apart from its decision to U-turn on fertilizers to prevent a Thanksgiving Day famine. Russian oil is now flowing back to the USA thanks to the expedient of mixing it 49-51 with other oils before importing it, so it ceases to be Russian. Baldrick would be proud.
Indeed they are! Which leaves their so-called allies in Europe up the creek without a paddle. And then commentators in the MSM wonder why Germany and Italy are luke warm at best over sanctions. But hey ho the US can depend on the UK doing its bit to double down on sanctions whatever the cost.
Russian uranium too continues to flow to the US. (The irony!)
The
ironyshameless hypocrisy!Give them time – they will cut it off soon.
I expect the extreme reaction of the hysterical West to Russia will encourage them to to increase their own Nuclear Arsenal.
I agree with Noah on this, but NATO clearly doesn’t.
In December last year, Russia tried to open a discussion with NATO about the security situation in Europe. The proposals included both sides refraining from aggressive deployment of warships, bombers, nuclear missiles etc.
These were serious proposals for an over-arching security framework that could benefit the whole of Europe, not just NATO, but NATO dismissed them.
NATO is not interested in peace or stability, they were in a deep “what do we do now” crisis from 1991 to 1999, when they discovered that what they do now is destabilise and attack various countries as and when the occasion demands.
“NATO is not interested in peace or stability, they were in a deep “what do we do now” crisis from 1991 to 1999“
It was a serious crisis – top level jobs, status and pensions were at risk, and colossal amounts of budgetary pork!
which is where their moniker North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation comes from.
NATO is a slush fund that provides mega-salaried sinecures and power-trip playtimes for the European political classes. Why would they wish to say goodbye to the money, air-miles, holidays with guns and uniforms?
So the West goading Russia into a full war was an effort to get Russia to overextend itself by moving on Kiev, rather than implement its more rational plan to secure the eastern oblasts.
They must be concerned that Russia has now reverted to its original, more modest and more rational plan.
Scant evidence that Russia ever intended to take Kyiv.
Fwiw, I think they didn’t, but must surely contemplate it again now.
Otherwise, they can’t prevent Ukraine’s rearmement, can’t perform rigorous enquiries of atrocities if they were really false flags and thereby expose Western hypocrisy and crimes and humiliate it and the consequences/sanctions of extending further don’t differ much from not doing so.
They could also easily get Romania, Hungary and even Poland on board and thereby divide the West and NATO if they then gave those 3 pieces of the pie.
Again, if it happens, we pushed them into it, not least through the false flags, if they were such.
The capital is not the country though. Taking Kiev would be symbolic, but not conclusive.
I suspect the Russians are more interested in who controls Zelensky,
Victoria Nuland and the people who control Biden.
Closer to home (when he’s in Ukraine), it’s said to the Azov Battalion and their ilk. So much the same, really.
Don’t forget Ihor Kolomoyskyi, without whom Zelensky would never have gotten into power.
All in good time.
I don’t think that the “international community” is inclined to sympathize with Russia regardless evidence of false flags. The hatred is visceral, another mass-psychosis. As to other fronts, one of the reasons I surmise that capturing Kyiv was never in the offing is that Russia committed so few troops to begin with. In fact, I’m reading less than half the 190,000 initially reported.
“International Community” – that would be the US UK the EU Five Eyes and Nato (minus Turkey) then?
Less than half the world. (Claims of yet another a CIA engineered “regime change” coup in Pakistan to bring ‘neutral’ Khan down. )
“They could also easily get Romania, Hungary and even Poland on board and thereby divide the West and NATO if they then gave those 3 pieces of the pie.“
I doubt that, tbh. The costs of doing so would far exceed any gains for those countries. Imo they would only do so as part of a Washington-backed plan to introduce NATO forces into the Ukraine as “peacekeepers”.
“Fwiw, I think they didn’t, but must surely contemplate it again now.
Otherwise, they can’t prevent Ukraine’s rearmement, can’t perform rigorous enquiries of atrocities if they were really false flags and thereby expose Western hypocrisy and crimes and humiliate it and the consequences/sanctions of extending further don’t differ much from not doing so.“
I agree that the uncompromising nature (and atrocity-riddled hatred) of the Ukrainian response has changed the calculus for Russia, but I’m not sure an assault on Kiev is going to be worthwhile.
Better I’d have thought to sit on the bits with Russian sympathising populations plus any bits necessary to secure those, whilst operating freely with stand off strikes and raids in the rest of the Ukraine, Israel-style, to inflict pain until they come to terms.
The US sphere might have shot their bolt wrt economic warfare, but Russia still has to worry about attitudes in the rest of the world, which would be disturbed by the kind of massive city fight that an assault no Kiev would involve.
This is all speculation, of course.
No country has better reason to know how extremely difficult it is to take a large city than Russia, after all.
It’s much easier to control who sits in the seats of power within that city.
Nobody really knows what Russia’s war plan was, what their actual objectives were and so it’s really hard to judge whether they are doing well in the war or not.
Personally I think the main objective was to trigger an economic war which is what can really hurt the west. i doubt, the US, UK, NATO leadership could care less if the Ukraine gets ravaged if it means Russia suffers and is weakened. Putin isn’t going to hurt the west much by killing Ukrainians.
“Nobody really knows what Russia’s war plan was, what their actual objectives were and so it’s really hard to judge whether they are doing well in the war or not.”
That’s true of course overall, but it is not really disputable that the western media propaganda narrative that Russia was aiming to assault Kiev with its initial advance and was defeated militarily is ridiculous, simply from the relatively tiny forces committed – far below what would have been necessary for any kind of assault on a city of that size.
It’s possible they carried out that move towards Kiev in the hope of exploiting a rapid collapse of Ukrainian resistance, which didn’t transpire, but clearly their plan B in that case was not to carry out an assault.
That is just one of the US sphere lies we have been subjected to. The suggestion that it was a diversionary, pinning move is far more plausible, imo.
Likewise, the small forces committed demonstrate that an opposed conquest of the Ukraine as a whole was never the plan, either.
You may be right.
I have no idea how many troops Russia committed. I have no idea what is really going on on the ground.
I don’t bother listening to any news because I don’t believe or trust what they say.
All I go on are the second hand accounts I get from people I know that talk directly to people in the Ukraine. So pretty anecdotal and limited information.
We are told by some normally reliable commentators that Russia has committed about 200,000 mainly second tier troops to Ukraine. Ukraine itself has about 250,000 full time troops and over 300,000 reservists.
Perhaps 200k, including the Luhansk and Donbass militias, perhaps. And initially mounting active offensives from Crimea north and west towards Odessa and north and east towards Mariupol, around the Donbass republics, and towards Kharkov, at the same time as the advance towards Kiev.
Here’s the Spectator’s idea of a western military expert – Professor of War Studies at Kings College London, about a month ago:
“your military forces [need to be] matched up to your strategic goals. Putin’s strategic goal here requires about a million troops – the overthrow of the Ukrainian government”
Well yes, Mike.Does that suggest anything about your assessment of the Russian supposed goals here?
“I think the Russian armed forces are going to collapse”
How’s that one going for you Mike?
(I feel a bit sorry for picking on him, but he’s representative of all the absurd propaganda that we were deluged with at the beginning of this operation, and are still being showered in, by Washington’s media and political shills and dupes.)
Peter Hitchens: ‘Nato’s continued existence has been a menace’ | SpectatorTV
Hitchen’s does get some things right. As for the Russian troop numbers, we can’t be too sure about them and of course things are changing as Phase 2 of the Special Operation gets underway. Two things we can be sure of though, are firstly Russia will not need one million troops to do what it wants to do in Ukraine and secondly the Spectator need to get itself a real military expert and sack the dozo from Kings.
This is a combined arms approach, so the 200,000 are not all troops.
Russia’s stated objectives make sense, in terms of their national interests. They don’t want Ukraine in NATO; they don’t want its foreign policy under American control; they do want the strong Nazi element in Ukraine destroyed – its power ended.
What they feel is necessary in order to achieve those goals is really what’s at issue. That’s probably changed over the last few weeks.
It was always a bluff, which was designed to stop Ukraine sending reinforcements to relieve the 50/60 thousand or so Ukrainian elite troops, who are now facing total annihilation in the Donbass cauldron, unless they surrender.
Putin has long said he doesn’t want to occupy Ukraine. He promised to protect the rights of the Russian speaking peoples of the country to speak the language and maintain their culture.
Ukrainian speaking Ukrainians didn’t like that so decided ethnic cleansing of Ukrainian Russians was the solution.
And the west completely ignored it despite howling about it going on elsewhere in the world.
Well now Putin is howling, after years of negotiations and warnings, and the west doesn’t like it.
Come on Lukewarm, wake up. He’s been occupying Crimea and the Donbass for years already.
Donbass is largely inhabited by Russians, who have been shelled by Ukrainian Militia for 8 years – 14,000 dead civilians.
Crimea would rather be Russian – as it used to be – than ruled by Rightist extremists in Kiev.
Time you woke up I think!
( See above comment)
the move on Kiev was a classic feint to hold a large proportion of Ukrainian forces away from the south east where several Russian forces – controlled cauldrons were being emplaced.
The feint worked perfectly.
Judo and chess being Russian specialties.
According to some Russian accounts I’ve read, the encirclement of Kiev was to hold up the Ukrainian forces so they were tied up and couldn’t advance to the East. Don’t know how much truth there is in this but it sounds plausible to me.
Not the best account as they didn’t encircle Kyiv.
Kiev was always just a diversion – the Russians said fro the start tghey had no intention of occupying the City -the real objectives are in the Russian speaking South and East. ( largely achieved)..
The Red Army fooled the Germans with “Maskirovka” ( deception) every time. See initial Stalingrad encirclement and most spectacularly “Operation Bagration” which wiped out the whole of German Army Group Centre around Minsk in June 1944 – between 25 and 38 divisions and 350,000 men ” taken out” of the line.
Re the RAND study, what it actually concluded was that providing the Ukraine with lethal aid in order to overextend and unbalance Russia would be a “high risk, high return” option.
Clearly, given the massive NATO armament and training of the Ukrainian forces between 2019 and 2022, someone decided on your behalf, Noah, that the high risks were worth running.
That’s what you get for letting neocon warmongers and anti-Russian zealots run policy for you without proper sane oversight (collectively speaking).
oooh the 77th won’t like that Vaxxy…..
where are they all btw, there’s been no mess to clear up yet.
Early Easter break?
Yep. Nice perks offered by the WEF.
Lurking below, I believe …
The statement by the two US diplomats is much ado about nothing. That same conversation happens in every political setting globally. Bc it is in any nation’s interests to help form new governments favourable to their side. There remains 0 proof that the EuroMaidan protests had any outside backing. Meanwhile we have great proof that Russian security and intelligence forces actively advised Yukachenko how to crush the protests. Protests it must be remembered began when he did a 180 on EU membership, which he had run on in prior election, for a full alignment to Moscow. The people had voted one way and had the man they vote completely change direction because of Moscow’s demands.
Russia is not the aggrieved party. Ukraine is not the one committed mass murder. As to force a compromise, when the UK is ready to compromise with Moscow and allow them to set up army battalions in Yorkshire and pick the heads of councils, then we can tell Ukraine to compromise. As to accelerating the crisis, Russia cannot handle another front in this war let alone another war. Could they use nukes? Technically yes, but that would only happen if everyone in the chain of command is willing to end all life on earth. Because that is what would occur. Putin might be willing to do so (if he is indeed mentally slipping) but the men who socked away millions while amassing mistresses and mansions serving Putin not so much.
14,000 ethnic Russians in Donbas (among others) might find fault with your thesis.
Russia offered a 3 way trade deal which the EU rejected.
Before it uses nukes, it could easily and quickly end and win this war and occupy the whole of Ukraine, if it adopted US style drone and carpet bombing techniques.
“There remains 0 proof that the EuroMaidan protests had any outside backing. Meanwhile we have great proof that Russian security and intelligence forces actively advised Yukachenko how to crush the protests. Protests it must be remembered began when he did a 180 on EU membership, which he had run on in prior election, for a full alignment to Moscow. The people had voted one way and had the man they vote completely change direction because of Moscow’s demands.“
Yes, that’s a correct summary of the Official Truth you’ve been fed for the past 8 years.
There is an alternative view, but that’s largely been suppressed and dismissed, of course, as “Russian propaganda” (as though the BBC/US sphere mainstream media would never distort or manipulate!)
Ukrainian agony – The concealed war
As usual, in such complex and contentious matters, the full truth is probably somewhere in between. It’s rarely the “pure good versus pure evil” fairy story each side likes to present.
Meanwhile, this is the nature of the profoundly corrupt and violent extremist-ridden society that is the Ukraine that we are being told we must go to the brink of war for:
A disturbing trend in the Ukraine
A view from a pro-Russian source undoubtedly, but that makes it no less reliable than the fanatically anti-Russia sources that run all our mainstream media.
Imagine what the BBC et all would be pouring out were all that to be happening in a state that was one of Washington’s designated enemies.
Quite. This is what the brainwashed just can’t fathom – that there are always two sides to a story and the truth usually lies somewhere in the grey area in the middle. Your wasting your time trying to explain that to most people though, they’ve been whipped into a frenzy of hate & irrational thinking by their own Government/MSM… again, remember Covid?
Switching off the gas would likely prove a more effective means of bringing Europe to its knees that launching a nuclear attack.
BTW, who would they launch it against?
A nuclear war would be unlikely to commence with an all out strategic first strike. More likely an escalatory ladder situation, albeit possibly quite rapid, given modern technology.
Agreed, but who shoots at who first, and for what reason?
Is Russia going to nuke Ukraine? Hardly, they could carpet bomb the cities but haven’t done that.
Is Russia going to nuke America or the UK? Why would Putin do that? Because we provide Ukraine with small arms?
Are we going to nuke Russia over Ukraine? Absolutely not.
Is Russia going to nuke Europe? Why, when they could switch off their gas and within weeks the continent would be on its knees. Would the US/UK respond with nukes? Not likely as it wouldn’t get the gas switched on again, indeed, it would probably destroy the gas infrastructure.
Are we going to roll our military into Ukraine to fight the Russians? Surely, we would have done that by now. And the solution would hardly be proportionate for Russia to launch ICBM’s into America, over a largely unproductive and corrupt country no one was interested in before this began.
Putin doesn’t want to occupy Ukraine, he’s already said it, and why would the largest country in the world want a few acres of cruddy land that’s politically more trouble than it’s worth?
We are being terrorised, once again, with government propaganda designed to keep us all fearful. I can’t believe people are even discussing the prospect far less believing it.
Nuland walking about giving people cookies on Maidan square ……. not really much involvement.
Nah, those US senators and congressmen and EU panjandrums were only there giving pacifist, non-interventionist moral support.
They aren’t the kind of people who would be able or willing to set dark dealings in motion, or anything. That would be a “conspiracy theory”. Like, presumably, the entire history of Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan. That never happened either, obviously.
The US never does things like that, and saying it does is Putin-loving conspiracy theory
And that stuff they said about being with them and all that – that was just being neighbourly. Even though they aren’t neighbours.
The actual neighbours have a country that’s way too big with too many resources for them to manage on their own. Plenty in the US and EU eager to take a piece off their hands?
FFS! Victoria Nudelman was there handing out cookies and discussing the personnel of the new government with Ambassador Pyatt..
If Nuland handing out cookies was enough to bring down a government, I’d suggest it wasn’t much of a government…
Go back to your cave.
Do some research on the internet about what has been happening to the Russian speakers in the Dombas , their lives have been made hell since 2014 and no one gave a toss.
Russia has suppressed languages and cultures within its borders for years, including Ukraine in the past. That’s precisely what created the problem today.
A Putin takeover will lead to an exponential increase in cultural suppression and ethnic cleansing – albeit in the other direction.
Usual whataboutery and conjecture from the congenital liar Fingal.
Funnily enough, in the early years of the Soviet Union enormous efforts were made to create journals in the different national languages and theatrical productions celebrating local culture.
Their folk legends and dances were revived and presented professionally. You can still the fruits of this in Russian ballet companies (when we’re allowed to see them).
Russia never suppressed languages and cultures. Yes, it imposed Russian as a common language, but never sought to prevent speakers of other languages from speaking their own language if they chose to do so. I am no fan of the Soviet Union and what it stood for, by the way.
For example
https://theconversation.com/russia-is-cracking-down-on-minority-languages-but-a-resistance-movement-is-growing-101493
F’kin lying eejit.
It abolished the compulsion to teach them. It didn’t abolish them altogether.
The UK doesn’t mandate the teaching of foreign languages in schools, why should the Russians?
This entire article is a cry of the woke, to appeal to morons like you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification#Ukraine
Yeh sure.
A poor quality article for the following reasons:
Constant Russian threats to Sweden and Finland, who (until now) were opposed to joining NATO, show that neutral status guarantees nothing. The fact is that the only way for Russia’s neighbours to guarantee Putin won’t invade them is to join NATO.
Whether NATO should be willing to accept them is another matter.
Nonetheless, I’ve listened to numerous Mearsheimer videos. In every one – and this going back several years – he only harps on NATO aggression as the reason for Russian angst.
Yes, but the nuclear disarmament issue was right after independence and precedes much of the NATO debate.
I’m not saying the NATO issue isn’t hugely important. But Putin was just as opposed to Ukraine joining the EU. Do you think it’s OK for Russia to have a veto on Ukrainian EU membership?
I’m struggling to see why they have the right…
Ukraine joining the EU. Do you think it’s OK for Russia to have a veto on Ukrainian EU membership?
In case you hadn’t noticed Russia does have a veto and is using it right now.
Do you think it’s OK for Russia to have a veto on Ukrainian EU membership?
Following the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU now includes a defence element with a softish committment to aid any member attacked. The EU fully intends to become a full blown defence alliance in addition to all its other roles.
So EU is not simply a trade and mutual copperation association.
Should Russia have a veto?
International relations are not matters of rights, they are about power and relative power. So the question is not framed correctly. The question is better framed as:
Does Russia have a veto?
Monroe Doctrine. The US will not tolerate any of its neighbours im the Americas joining a potentially hostile alliance. Therefore, right or wrong, it exercises a veto on this issue. As it did in Grenada 1983.
US is the goose. Same sauce for the gander, Russia.
On Feb 24, after decades of warnings that were contemptuously ignored, (Russia is just a gas station with nukes) Russia exercised the veto it always had due to the reality that it is a powerful nation.
Clearly not, as many countries have already joined NATO and so will Finland and Sweden, by the look of it.
And Russia does not have the power to stop NATO expansion.
And Russia does not have the power to stop NATO expansion.
Ask Ukraine about that.
Because you are unaware of this presumably……
this clause provides that if an EU country is the victim of armed aggression on its territory,the other EU countries have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This obligation of mutual defence is binding on all EU countries.
Yes, but that’s just the EU – not the US, not the UK, not NATO.
Where one stands on the Ukraine issue seems to depend on whether one believes that Russia was provoked by NATO or whether one believes Putin’s Russia is intrinsically aggressive and looking to expand territorially.
It’s an argument that will probably never be settled and will go on until the cows come home.
A bit like whether the global COVID debacle was a conspiracy or a cock up.
It helps to look at a map.
The “Woke Generation” don’t do maps.
Just “Facebook” and “Twitter” insults.
Yes – but the wider problem is that Russia has never accepted the full independence of the ex Soviet republics. Belarus is so dominated by Russia that it’s just allowed Russian troops to use it as a launch pad – an act of war that’s barely been commented on, because everyone just accepts they’re a mere Russian proxy state. Ukraine used to be controlled in the same way, up until the revolutions.
A lesser degree of control has been exerted over other neighbours.
If that is your measure of independence, then there are very few independent countries in the world, because the list of countries with foreign military bases is really long.
I don’t agree at all that the presence of a military base means they’re not independent.
For example, Turkey refused to let the US use the NATO base at Incirlik for operations against Islamic State. This forced them to fly massive missions from hundreds of miles away, hugely decreasing their effectiveness.
“For example, Turkey refused to let the US use the NATO base at Incirlik for operations against Islamic State.”
Absolute nonsense, again!
“On 13 October 2014, it was rumored that the Turkish government approved the use of Incirlik Air base to support operations against the Islamic State[18] but this was later denied.[19] On 23 July 2015, it was confirmed that the Turkish Government would begin allowing USAF UAVs and USAF combat planes to fly combat sorties against ISIL in neighboring Syria out of Incirlik Air base.[20] Ankara formally signed a deal 29 July 2015 with the United States over the use of Turkey’s Incirlik air base in the U.S.-led coalition’s campaign against the Islamic State, the Turkish Foreign Ministry said, Hurriyet reported. The agreement covers only the fight against the Islamic State and does not include air support for allied Kurdish fighters in northern Syria, a spokesman for the ministry said.”
And your next absurd statement
“This forced them to fly massive missions from hundreds of miles away, hugely decreasing their effectiveness.”
Hundreds of miles? You do realise the range and speed of the aircraft involved in warfare don’t you? I would say that you don’t, especially after the last stupid comment you made about Russian fighter jets not being able to engage an airliner, because it was too high
Do me a favour and stop writing about things you clearly know nothing about, which so far appears to be everything you have written.
Turkey controlled when the base could be used, not NATO.
Turkey initially refused use of Incirlik during the Islamic State attack on Kobane. Saving Kobane was a crucial turning point in the war against IS.
The long distances travelled by NATO planes compared to the later bomb runs of the Russians, in the heart of Syria, made a massive difference to their effectiveness. Russian planes could do triple the rate of attacks.
Interestingly, one of the key clauses in revolutionary Iran’s constitution based on their own past bad experiences, was:
Article 146 [No Foreign Military Bases]
[F]oreign military bases in Iran, even for peaceful purposes, is forbidden.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Iran#Article_146_%5BNo_Foreign_Military_Bases%5D
A wise move on their part, and one I wish we would adopt.
(There was some controversy during the Russian intervention in Syria to protect the government there against US-backed attempts to turn it into a bloody, jihadi-ridden wasteland as was done by the UK Cameron regime in Libya, when Russian jets were allowed to use Iranian airfields temporarily, but I don’t think the policy has been overturned yet.)
The entirety of Belarus has been used as a military base and attack point by Russia
Which makes it a legitimate military target…eejit
Like Poland you mean?
Indeed. And?
Can’t really blame them, tbh.
Did it really never occur to you that actively trying to demonise and overthrow a foreign government might result in that government not seeing any reason not to act against you when the opportunity arises?
Evidence please of Ukraine demonising Belarus, prior to this invasion
Grow up. As so often, you answer a point you’d like the other person to have mad, not the one that was made.
As you well know, this is a conflict between the US and its satellite states and Russia.
So, you’re arguing that Belarus can invade Ukraine, because the US said they don’t think much of Belarus’s government…
Complicated.
Not complicated at all. You are a simpleton who just makes convoluted crap up to fuel an argument.
Complicated simply because untrue.
Not true.
You do not use a north western entry point to enter the East and South of Ukraine which is where the real action is.
The attack in the direction of Kiev was largely initiated from Russia as a diversion to draw Ukrainian troops , which is why the Russians have now withdrawn – there is no longer any point in it.
In fairness to the Belarussians, the US sphere had just been caught out blatantly trying to overthrow their government (again!)
Belarus indicts four people in foiled coup plot – security service
Who knows what the truth is about this alleged incident, but the fact remains that only a moron or a liar would claim the US and its EU satellites aren’t straining every sinew to overthrow the Belarus government. Pretty stupid to expect them not to respond.
The EU has overthrown every government that has ever allowed its country to join the ‘Common Market’.
Whatever did happen to that promise it wouldn’t become a political entity?
LOL! A “promise” for the half-witted.
Like all EU promises – it was a lie.
Yes – but the wider problem is that Russia has never accepted the full independence of the ex Soviet republics.
Replace the word Russia with the USA and you are bang on.
Make that Biden’s USA. Not a sniff of conflict under Trump.
Trump was just a mini-blip.
He was in the way of the Globalists – hence the Election steal.
Yea-but, no-but…..Fingal’s usual nonsense. There is an alliance of former Eastern bloc EU members confronting Brussels on its overbearing and dictatorial bureaucracy.
Russia didn’t invade Belarus to use it as a launch pad. It’s beyond your tiny imagination to recognise that there are countries who have a great deal of sympathy with Russia’s position.
Numerous countries now understand the EU is not the benign ‘Common Market’ it purported to be. It’s an alliance of growing NATO membership with its own designs on a European military undoubtedly controlled by the biggest and most influential economy in the EU, which would be Germany.
But we’re not allowed to think of Germany as anything other than lederhosen slapping, beer drinking, happy chappies.
The country has always had designs on the vast resources available to Russia, hence Operation Barbarossa which was Germany’s attempt to seize the country to plunder it for war materials and fuel for its war effort.
Apparently, we are supposed to believe the passage of time has blunted that ambition.
Had Germany been allowed to militarise following WW2, do you imagine they would not, right now, be securing their gas supplies by force?
So many things wrong, so little time to correct. But this is extra stupid.
Belarus has been controlled by Russia ever since its fictional independence. No need to invade what they already possess.
Someone had to protect Belarus from the clutches of Nato and Biden Family Values!
How many Biowarfare plants in Belarus I wonder?
The man who didn’t know what the Molotov Ribbentrop pact was, now moves onto Barbarossa…oh dear.
Damn, what a barefaced liar you are. It was me who pointed out to you the agreement was officially known as the Molotov Ribbentrop pact and not the Hitler/Stalin pact as you incorrectly dubbed it.
Gruesome little troll. Back under your bridge.
In fact you argued that Stalin never made a pact with Hitler…it was just between those two blokes, Molotov and Ribbentrop.
I understand your embarrassment.
Stalin gained buffer space in Poland and the Baltic states by making a defensive pact with Hitler in 1939 that stunned the UK Foreign Office and frightened the US!
Hitler received a steady supply of enough raw materials from Stalin to feed the war forever!
Imagine the relief in Washington and London when Hitler broke it!
A Russo-German alliance was and is the neo-con American Nightmare!
Take a quick look at the history of Belarus (clue: it means “White Russia”).
Where one stands on the Ukraine issue seems to depend on whether one believes that Russia was provoked by NATO or whether one believes Putin’s Russia is intrinsically aggressive and looking to expand territorially.
It’s hard to find evidence for the latter though isn’t it? Putin’s been in power for over 20 years. One would have thought we’d have seen a bit more territorial expansion if that characterised the Russian state. I think Russia has been goaded into this conflict by a dishonest, criminal US and NATO, and has done so reluctantly and long, long after most states would have. It doesn’t make the war justified or righteous, but it’s clearly got nothing to do with territorial expansion – Russia, with the largest land area and most resources on earth, really doesn’t need any more real estate!
So if Mexico joined a military alliance with China, you would argue that the US has no right to prevent it and should just do nothing?!
You are completely wrong on neutrality.
Finland, Sweden, Austria and Switzerland are actually good examples that it can work.
If you are a neighbour of a great power, don’t want to team up with it but want to live in peace, neutrality and treating that neighbour’s people residing in your country are the best and most crucial decisions you can and must make.
Finland and Sweden are only inviting and getting trouble if they joined NATO now, thanks to what’s really behind all this: the prevention of the too far reduced time window for a counterstrike through hypersonic missiles.
Romania and Poland, let alone the Baltic states contemplating them, would be well advised to dismantle the launch systems soon.
The US has plenty to answer for its actions over the years.
Putin already had an effective veto over NATO membership, because NATO does not accept new members with an ongoing territorial dispute (ie the Donbass and Crimea). It’s EU membership he was really afraid of.
You can argue it any way you like, but the fact is that Putin has invaded a number of neighbours, and none of them were NATO members. People notice!
Russia accepted neutral Austria’s, Finland’s and Sweden’s EU memberships and proposed a 3 way trade deal for Ukraine, rejected by the EU (and the US, of course).
Nuff said.
More Fingal whataboutary.
Were Korea or Vietnam members of NATO when America waged war there? How about Kuwait when Saddam invaded? They weren’t even neighbours of America!
NATO accepts members the USA allows it to accept.
Your argument is demonstrably nonsense as the EU ‘doesn’t’ allow overtly corrupt countries membership, but were damn quick to offer Ukraine fast track membership when it became clear Russia wasn’t happy with what was going on.
Which countries other than Ukraine?
Do you not think that this visceral hatred of Putin and Russia is a touch irrational?
It has a “right” to invade Mexico, in so far as a right it really just a privilege one has the power to enforce.
In the case of keeping Chinese bases out of Mexico, that is a privilege the US has given itself and called it the Monroe Doctrine.
Russia is claiming the “right” to keep NATO out of the Ukraine. The US is challenging that right.
Saudi Arabia is claiming the “right” to decide who runs Yemen. Nobody seems to be claiming that right for now.
“Rights” is a very misunderstood word.
Very dodgy when applied to nations …
Or anything really.
The right to health care? A privilege someone has to pay for.
The right to education? Same
The right to move freely inside your country? Until someone with a gun or a uniform or both tells you otherwise.
There are no rights. Only privileges defended by force or the threat of force.
I understand the points you’re making.
But, philosophical issues aside, it’s dangerous to tell human beings that they have no rights at all.
That’s the language used by those who tell me that I have no right to refuse to take an injection I don’t want. I am currently being told that I have no right to travel outside my country. That is a privilege I can earn through “vaccination”.
There is a general understanding that privileges are earned through merit, or received through inheritance.
If there are no rights, “only privileges defended by force of the threat of force”, where does that leave children?
What language do we use to defend them?
Of course I understand that “rights” is a shorthand for something that we consider highly desirable and basically beyond question.
The term is abused though and leads people to forget they have a price, be it a financial one or having to fight and defend them.
I thought the freedom to leave my home whenever I wanted, the freedom to wear what I like or the freedom to medicate myself or not was an unquestionable right.
How wrong I was. I’ve learned painfully that it turns out to be a gift.of the state.
I think the term has been abused and cheapened – even turned into a sort of joke: “I’ve got rights, you know!”
But the freedoms you list are your rights. They were not a gift of the state – they were usurped by the state, stolen. They belong to you, unquestionably.
A thief stole your property and the property of countless others. We need to get that property returned to us.
The thieves should be punished in a manner calculated to discourage any future attempts by presumptuous villains.
Too late, US-NATO will have achieved its real goal of moving US proxy territory right up to the Russian border by the summer. As The Times reports:
Sanna Marin, Finnish PM, is openly pushing for immediate membership.
In essence Putin was always damned if he did and damned if he didn’t – it just seems that, as a consequence, we are all now damned to be forever under the corrupt and corrupting US political, economic and military yoke – unless BRICS quickly gets its act together, and India and Pakistan can resist relentless aggressive (indeed regime changing) US arm twisting.
Of course it all might end up as a good old World War instead, in which let me be the first to bagsy the role of Private Walker – although nowadays I’m sure I’ll probably end up as Private Godfrey. Then again, I doubt I could get through any sort of woke selection procedure for any sort of (living) role.
“Who do you think you are kiddin’ Mr Putin (etc)…”
Neutrality is the way forward or face being neutralised. The governments of Sweden and Finland must have sawdust for brains.
‘It’s up to Ukraine what they want concede or not’
I don’t think Pooty agrees with your assessment.
This is about whether Ukraine officially concedes sovereignty for peace.
Like the whole of Europe then, ex France maybe.
Rather, like with Serbia and Iraq, back when staging an illegal military assault on a sovereign county was no biggie, apparently.
But that was with English-speakers at the helm, silly. That means they were bringing civilised values, not actually invading at all (shame about what happened to Babylon).
And it the US is involved, it doesn’t matter if it’s “illegal”. Nobody’s taking them to The Hague.
“If that was wrong, so is this. Why aren’t you saying so?”
Clearly, there is no global rules based order that makes attacking other countries inherently wrong..
So we are left with justifications in particular cases – exactly what the UN Charter that the US basically ripped up in Serbia and in Iraq was meant to end.
You don’t get to ignore the supposed law and then apply it to others.
As for your nonsense on Serbia and Iraq, I’ve addressed those with you before on several occasions, and you clearly have no interest in the truth. They were flat breaches of the UN charter and outright illegal as such, if that treaty has any standing – as it arguably had until those events.
Fingal is content in his cognitive dissonance. No matter how many times he’s corrected he comes back out with the same old fallacies, time and time again.
It’s how the left wear people down.
It’s simply what he’s paid to do. It’s all quantity and zero quality with him, but what the heck it pays the rent.
I don’t usually bother with trolls much, I normally have fun with them, but Fingal is just a liar. I would be happy to see him kicked off the site for his deceit, and I have never said that of anyone before.
Yaaaaaaawn.
No. Russia has now taken on that role. Ukraine just keeps getting smaller and smaller. When will they ever learn?
Russia can take territory, but only at the expense of peace.
You’ve said this before and it’s nonsense. Ukraine NEVER had any nuclear weapons…they always belonged to Russia and Kiev NEVER had the codes to arm them. The West would NEVER have let Ukraine keep the weapons and become a nuclear country.
presumably this is NEVER going to go into your noggin…..
Ukraine did possess the weapons, but not the codes.
The West was (correctly I think) worried about nuclear proliferation so encouraged them to give them up.
But the key point here is that RUSSIA GUARANTEED UKRAINIAN SOVEREIGNTY in return for handing over the weapons. It doesn’t matter whether they could ever have been usable or not.
Sweden and Finland being neutral have little to fear from Russia. If they actually join NATO then they will likely find themselves in very hot water.
Too late for that. Russia has been buzzing their airspace and threatening them for years.
What the article doesn’t explain and is critical is why the war is considered a must win for the the US.
The conflict in Ukraine is the tip of the iceberg of the real conflict, which is really a financial and economic one.
The western financial system is under enormous stress because it relies on constant expansion fo unsustainable debt. Russia initiated a conflict in the Ukraine not primarily to conquer the Ukraine but to trigger an economic war with the west and exploit its weakness. It has attacked the dollar reserve system at a time when it looks vulnerable and ready to be taken down.
And Russia seems to be doing quite well in the bigger economic war given that the price of the Ruble which after a brief collapse is back to pre-invasion levels.
For Russia it’s an existential battle because it’s fed up of the western/NATO push towards its borders. For the US and the west at large it is an existential battle because the financial, economic and monetary system on which its power has been based has been attacked and is under threat of collapse.
The problem for us us that while the Ukraine is an existential issue for Russia and not for us, it is certainly very important – potentially close to “existential” – for the clique of hugely powerful and wealthy people who manipulate policy in the US sphere (and globally), who have chosen to go “all in” on this.
That mis-match between our interests and those of the people we have allowed to run our strategic policy means we might end up at war despite having no genuine interest in doing so.
You can say the same for Russian people. Whether NATO is in the Ukraine or not doesn’t really affect their lives that much.
All these wars and fights are always between the elites of society. Ordinary people just pay and suffer.
No, I don’t agree with that. The goal of those pushing NATO eastwards is regime change in Russia and the return of that country to the state of pliable, exploitable submission that it fell into in the 1990s. The Russians remember that, and won’t let it happen.
The difference is that Russia has something resembling a national-patriotic government, albeit also exploitative as all power structures inevitably are, whereas we have a globalist regime that is wholly exploitative. There is no good versus evil fairy story, but that doesn’t mean there are no real differences.
The extent to which a country’s leadership exploits not just its own people but also people’s from other countries is really just a function of their power.
Russia isn’t currently expansionist force like the west because it can’t. So for now they can look as if all they are trying to do is defend their motherland. And to be clear, they’ve chosen to defend their people by what? Invading a neighbour.
60 years ago, when they had more power, they took over the whole of eastern Europe.
If you’re going to try to place Russia on some sort of moral high ground, I think you’re going to struggle.
It’s not so much about moral high ground per se, it’s the difference between a national leadership that is not ideologically focussed, versus a globalist, ideologically focussed leadership.
Not saying one is always good and the other always bad, far from it, but they are profoundly different. And I do much prefer the former to the latter, in general.
I don’t understand that argument. I would say Putin has an ideological vision for Russia. In fact, without one it’s very hard to inspire people and embrace hardship. It’s just a very different one to the ideology and vision of the western oligarchy.
Well I suppose it depends what you mean by ideology. Though my impression is that Putin is very much a pragmatist rather than an ideologue.
In this case, I’m referring to universalist ideologies that seek to transform the world, such as Soviet communism or modern US woke globalism
I don’t think Putin has an ideology to transform the world because he doesn’t have the power. He has the power to defend Russia’s territorial integrity and fight for a few buffer states and so that’s what his ideology encompasses. His limited scope for action probably looks like pragmatism.
Clearly we disagree in our assessment of Putin.
Russia’s power seems more than enough to stop the West coming to the aid of its dodgy Ukranian proxy. Ukraine has now been thrown to the lions by its treacherous mentor NATO.
Victory over Nazi Germany helped end the suffering of many “ordinary people”. There were ordinary people who knew and understood this; and fought in spite of their local elites.
Sure, once you’re in a situation where someone wants to invade you and subject you to a new rule, you’ll willingly join the fight. The issue is why things reach that point in the first place. It’s always a pissing contest between elites.
To give an English example, how would you classify the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381?
Unquestionably there were elites listed on either side, but I don’t believe that can be dismissed as a pissing contest between them.
Why is it the job of the British to supply the Ukrainian military with equipment?
Why should the British be supplying Ukraine with security guarantees whereby we may face war with Russia in the future?
What exactly has the Ukraine ever done for us that sees us bending over backwards to service their needs in this way?
Why does the UK still have 142 military bases abroad?!
One soldier per base in our glorious army?
Because it makes our elites feel important, and allows them to strut about on a global stage rather than having to get involved in issues that actually matter to the nation.
Most of them in Scotland!
Serve as the punching bag to sap the strength out of Russia? What more do you want?
(You meaning the British establishment, which claims to be acting in the interest of the British people, even though you and I both know they don’t really.)
Serve as the punching bag to sap the strength out of Russia? What more do you want?
Straight to the point and the Ukies never saw it coming.
Makes one proud to be British and a USA lapdog.
And this is the thanks Russia gets for, above all others, defeating the last European proponent of a New World Order.
Fascism defeated at a cost to Russia of – 20, 25, 30 million souls, take your pick.
.
War game it all you like with your wonderful computer models, but if it comes to a numbers game does anyone with a brain seriously think us decadent would win?
You are underestimating the all new UK transgender paratroopers.
The ‘Pink Devils’ are going to be a unique fighting force, and once they are all back from having their nip and tuck surgery they will be a sight to behold!
Time to send in the Alpha Male Assemble to sort it all out!
England’s very own ‘crack team’.
No dice, Boris sent all our boxing gloves to Ukraine last week.
It’s quite obvious that there is ‘world politics’ at play here.
But the constant articles from American academics, repeated here and all over the internet about the causes of this war being either:
etc etc
All of which undoubtedly have a part to play in world politics, but completely ignore one salient fact:
What Ukrainians on the ground want.
They want freedom. Democracy. Trade with the West.
All the academic naval-gazing does is rob those people of their own will and rights to define what they want.
It also demonstrates that wherever in the world that conflicts arise, WE always make it about US.
Lets for once listen to what the Ukrainians want, and what they’re fighting and dying for.
Because they aren’t fighting and dying for a few soundbites by American politicians or academics.
And if you want to learn more, listen to our podcast. I’ve travelled in Ukraine. Know the people. At least take the time out to listen to them.
https://therealnormalpodcast.buzzsprout.com/1268768/10397421-ep-47-inside-ukraine-tanya-shelepko-the-changing-phases-of-war
“What Ukrainians on the ground want.
They want freedom. Democracy. Trade with the West. [code for integration into the US sphere]”
What some Ukrainians want. But nothing like all Ukrainians. A majority in the country perhaps, but certainly not a majority in particular areas of the country.
The Ukrainian nationalist side has forfeited any right to be in charge of the country in the borders set up after the collapse of the Soviet Union, by the behaviour they have exhibited and the atrocities they have allowed against those who disagreed with them.
This war is the result of their rulers, egged on by massive US interference, refusing any compromise. They even agreed to such compromises, in the Minsk Accords, and then shamelessly ignored them to carry on murdering dissenters.
Would that be after all the Russian speaking children in the Donbass are dead or living in caves as promised by a Ukranian President?
Yesterday I read that the fat tw@t Boris was giving away British anti-ship missiles to Ukraine – he is generous isn’t he, (perhaps he will send them some of his wall paper and invite them to some of the garden parties that he never has?).
I decided to look into this because there was no detail in the MSM.
It turns out that the UK only has obselte harpoon anti ship missiles and that the UK government/MOD has completely guffed up aquiring a replacement missile system.
So whilst Boris is busy given away all our anti tank missiles, loads of anti air missiles and our obselete (but all we have) harpoon missiles , our glorious navy can’t sink any enemy ships.
I was reading about this in the linked publication, they are using some delightful language to describe this colossal cock up, they are calling it ‘a capability holiday’.
Gross incompetence sounds so much better when dressed in soft language doesn’t it?
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy-rows-back-on-plans-to-acquire-new-anti-ship-missiles-before-2030s/
Be reasonable! After all, we live in a land of milk and honey where there is no suffering or need whatsoever, so why should our rulers not expend our resources helping people they like overseas?
Now that’s the spirit!
After all, look how the US saved us all in two world wars. I saw some of their films They definitely did..
Putin came to power and courted the West, see his speech in the Bundestag 2001.
The West, in particular the US and UK strategists, MIC and OGMC would have none of it, for strategic power reasons (Mackinder, Brzeszinski), fearing that Russia/Germany tieup in particular, and for obvious financial reasons, so they all sabotaged it and left out no chance to weaken and humiliate Russia ever since.
Putin is a wolf, but he offered to be the West’s wolf then and we kicked him when he was down.
We expected him to die, instead he grew stronger, reluctantly went on to search and now found another, much, much stronger, pack to team up with.
With strategists like this, who needs enemies?!
Ukraine played a bad hand poorly.
It was hijacked by a few oligarchs and naively went all-in on a reckless bet, relying on a very unreliable partner whose interests are very different than its own.
It will now have to pay the price for that folly and arrogance.
If it had stayed neutral, done a 3way trade deal and treated the Russian speakers well instead, it would now be thriving and secure.
This and it should serve as a warning example for the Baltic states, Sweden and Finland in particular, but sadly, they all seem to draw the opposite and very wrong lessons from its behaviour.
Finland’s Railways have re-started running freight trains between Finland-Russia. There’s your ‘solidarity’ for Ukraine!
Don’t worry I’m sure they’ll be stampeded into NATO.
where does Finland get it’s energy from EF? Does it trade O&G with the Ruskies or hydro from the Noggies?
Well said. It is such a tragedy. Russians really do feel this to be an existential threat, and are extremely sad and worried by the long-standing vicious attitudes to them in the West. They will have no choice but to seek other allies.
Sound summary.
Sounds about right, read another excellent analysis here :https://delingpole.substack.com/p/on-the-bucha-massacre-and-whats-really?s=r
Looking at the very high level of strategy, it seems that there are three major power groups amongst the world’s military – the West, Russia and China.
It is hard to see why the West (aka the US) wants to fight Russia to a standstill. The only reason I can think of is the classic two-front tactic that Germany used in WW1 – beat one enemy so comprehensively that they cannot get up again, and then you can put all your resource into fighting enemy number two.
I fear that this is what the US is trying to do at the moment – clear the way for a global war with China.
The US and UK’s interests are very different here and with regard to Russia in general than EUrope’s and in particular Germany’s.
Sadly, only Orban currently seems to be able to recognize this and that the US and UK are doing nothing but deliberstely throwing EUrope and Germany under the bus.
Plus ça change….
Pretty good summary, I’d say, though Russia is only comparable with China in purely military technology terms, power wise. Longer term, China is massively more powerful.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, and with the rise of a new rival in China, the US needed to win Russia over to its side against China. Doing so by diplomatic means proved too inconvenient for those setting US policy, so they set out to crush Russia into submission instead.
It isn’t looking like a wise policy choice, but then again it was made by the people who brought us Iraq, Libya and Syria, so expectations shouldn’t be high..
Dr Vernon Coleman – We have eight months.
One could add into the mix Nigel Farage’s 2014 characteristically ‘On the money’ speech to the European Parliament, predicting war in Ukraine as a result of the West’s / the EU’s involvement in the Maidan coup. ‘YOU SHOULD ALL FEEL GUILTY!’ were his words. Zelensky was subsequently pressured by the threats of nationalists into dropping the Minsk accords, thousands of Russian speaking civilians were killed/tortured/murdered by sadistic Ukrainian nationalists in the east of Ukraine – including children – and the rest is history / hypocrisy. It is truly appalling. Yet again, we sceptics (truth seekers) are here trying to get people to wake up. Very sad. Look up ‘The Alley of Angels’ in Donetsk. Films – Oliver Stone, ‘Ukraine on Fire’, and another one ‘Ukraine, yesterday, today and tomorrow’.
The reason is that Putin and many Russians perceive NATO expansion into Ukraine as an “existential threat” to Russia. Many Western commentators dispute this. But what they believe is “irrelevant”, says Mearsheimer, because “the only thing that matters is what Putin and his fellow Russians think”.
Indeed. And this is and has come to the forefront now due to hypersonic weapons and the too far reduced response time through them.
If the West/Europe wants to continue to live in peace, it should restrict itself to the old line of missile launch systems, meanin none East of Germany/Italy and be grateful that they were able to sneak them into Turkey eventually, and dismantle the existing ones in Romania and Poland ASAP.
Let alone moving them into the Baltic states, a recipe for the next escalation and war, or accepting Finland and Sweden as NATO members.
Yet more pro-Kremlin / pro-invasion propaganda on Daily Sceptic – a site originally set up as Lockdown Sceptics to challenge state oppression, not promote the most extreme examples of this such as the mass destruction and murder currently being carried out in Ukraine on behalf of one of the world’s most tyrannical regimes.
A couple of specifics, re ‘Professor John Mearsheimer is the man who predicted the Ukraine crisis’
Quite the opposite in the speech being cited from September 2015 he stated “If you really want to wreck Russia, what you should do is to encourage it to try to conquer Ukraine. Putin is much too smart to try that”
So if nothing else he clearly believes the invasion of Ukraine to be an act of puppet-like stupidity (I don’t take such a personal approach, just look at the pros and cons of ideas and practices).
Also “The reason is that Putin and many Russians perceive NATO expansion into Ukraine as an ‘existential threat’ to Russia. Many Western commentators dispute this. But what they believe is ‘irrelevant’, says Mearsheimer, because “the only thing that matters is what Putin and his fellow Russians think”.
That could be taken back in time and converted into: “The reason is that Hitler and many Germans perceive Jewish people to be an ‘existential threat’ to Germany. Many British commentators dispute this. But what they believe is “irrelevant”, says Mearsheimer, because “the only thing that matters is what Hitler and his fellow Germans think”.
In any case there has never been an ‘existential threat’ of invasion (by the US, NATO, Ukraine or any other source) of the largest country in the world with over 6,000 nuclear weapons, that concept is simply MAD.
The reason that former USSR ruled countries such as Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania clamoured to be let into the NATO defensive alliance is fear of being conquered and tyrannised again by an increasingly expansionist Moscow regime – the one that has just invaded the non-NATO Ukraine.
The Russian government is not in reality fearful of any external military attack, but rather worried that the growth of multi-party democracy and general freedoms in former controlled territories will provide an inspiration to its own downtrodden population.
It is also acting from straightforward ultra-nationalistic / fascistic / imperialistic motivations, as Mr Putin has clearly shown from his admiring lectures about the Russian empire in the Tsarist and Soviet eras, his claims about the superiority of modern ‘Slavic’ culture over ‘Western decadence’ etc.
Where I do agree with Professor Mearsheimer is that a ceasefire and peace settlement should be reached in Ukraine as soon as possible, our primary concern must be with the terrible suffering of all those in the region, including Russian troops.
We should also be working with urgency towards the end of all the other armed conflicts currently taking place across the globe (eg Yemen), and ultimately world peace and disarmament. The alternative, as the Putin regime never tires of threatening everyone with, is not only continuing senseless localised slaughter but the potential for humanicidal nuclear war.
The whole conflict inducing nation-state system should be replaced with peaceable regional administrations, which in turn would require us all to abandon the primitive ideology of nationalism (also similarly divisive and hatred-inducing sectarian delusions such as Marxism, racism, militant organised religion etc).
“Yet more pro-Kremlin / pro-invasion propaganda on Daily Sceptic – a site originally set up as Lockdown Sceptics to challenge state oppression, not promote the most extreme examples of this such as the mass destruction and murder currently being carried out in Ukraine on behalf of one of the world’s most tyrannical regimes.”
Well I think the ATL pieces have been fairly evenly split between pro and anti Kremlin, and indeed the site owner is much more on the “anti” side, but evidently believes in freedom of speech and open debate.
I have absolutely no problem with publishing articles like this, it is always useful to be aware of all perspectives, and where relevant be able to challenge propagandist material. I continue to be very grateful to Mr Young and others behind this site for facilitating this and general dialogue.
The ‘Yet more pro-Kremlin / pro-invasion propaganda on Daily Sceptic’ statement referred to the overwhelming pre-ponderance of user comments and upticks (sometimes dozens to zero) from that perspective rather than main articles.
I see. Well, one way of looking at it is that trust in government and other “mainstream” sources of information has been irreparably damaged for generations by the covid lies. I don’t know much about Russia and Ukraine, but I think I know hysteria and suppression of debate when I see it, and I also struggle to see the compelling UK interest in the conflict, and wonder if we are doing ourselves more harm than good.
I was absolutely shocked by the degree of tyranny suddenly introduced into nominally democratic countries such as the UK (lockdowns etc) using the excuse of a relatively minor viral disease.
On the other hand it must be acknowledged that the coronavirus restrictions were not mainly imposed top-down but rather eagerly embraced by majorities of populations who for decades had increasingly bought into the whole ultra-health (a subset of the environmentalism) concepts underpinning them.
In any case we should simply look at each issue or policy as objectively as possible, rather than ascribing permanently malign motivations to any individuals or groupings involved (including so-called ‘mainstream media’) and automatically adopting an opposite position.
That really is to hand over our freedom of thought.
“On the other hand it must be acknowledged that the coronavirus restrictions were not mainly imposed top-down but rather eagerly embraced by majorities of populations “
Populations that had been subjected to systematic propaganda manipulation by professional behavioural manipulators, with massive media spend and active suppression of dissent.
“we should simply look at each issue or policy as objectively as possible, rather than ascribing permanently malign motivations to any individuals or groupings involved (including so-called ‘mainstream media’) and automatically adopting an opposite position.“
The point is precisely not about “automatically adopting an opposite position”, but rather about not accepting the mainstream position merely because it is so overwhelmingly pushed, and listening to alternative arguments.
However, that said, you can go further than that and say that experience suggests that added scepticism is justified when there is a massive mainstream media push in a particular direction – covid, BLM, climate alarmism, Ukraine…
For myself, I already knew the mainstream narrative on the Ukraine was false before it blew up again recently, because I’ve been following events there, and the wider US sphere foreign policy of interventionism, regime change and war, for decades
These are all very interesting points. I have never really thought about this before but ‘scepticism’ is probably not a useful concept in general as alongside the free-thinking aspect it implies a pre-disposition to suspicion and rejection – in other words a bias, not really free-thinking at all.
In any case I wasn’t suggesting that everyone has come to question the generally anti Russian invasion positions held in eg the UK due to a knee-jerk rejection of ‘the narrative’ –
But rather that ‘the Western mainstream media argues this case therefore it must be wrong’ is a widely used meme within pro ‘Special Military Operation’ propaganda.
And those putting this non-argument forward never mention the vastly more controlled and biased Russian ‘mainstream media’, for obvious reasons.
“I have never really thought about this before but ‘scepticism’ is probably not a useful concept in general as alongside the free-thinking aspect it implies a pre-disposition to suspicion and rejection – in other words a bias, not really free-thinking at all.”
I’d suggest you probably need to think that through further.
“But rather that ‘the Western mainstream media argues this case therefore it must be wrong’ is a widely used meme within pro ‘Special Military Operation’ propaganda.”
If you say so….
“And those putting this non-argument forward never mention the vastly more controlled and biased Russian ‘mainstream media’, for obvious reasons.”
Probably because those people, presumably, don’t live in Russia and aren’t subjected to whatever regime of control and bias they might impose.
In fact, in many US sphere countries the views of Russian media are actively censored.
Looks like our rulers don’t trust us to make up our own minds…
I’d suggest you probably need to think that through further
If you wish to try and refute something without any content to back it up neater (but equally unconvincing) just to say ‘wrong’
if you say so…
See the above.
Probably because those people, presumably, don’t live in Russia and aren’t subjected to whatever regime of control and bias they might impose.
What a strange presumption. People can post on the internet from anywhere in the world (if necessary through VPNs) and propaganda promoters are clearly capable of lying about their location. That is not meant as an accusation against any specific individuals.
In any case my point about Russian ‘mainstream media’ not being mentioned was not related to pro-invasion posters’ geographical location, but rather to highlight the fact that the ‘mainstream media’ inherently wrong argument would have to be turned on its head if it was.
In fact, in many US sphere countries the views of Russian media are actively censored.
I have no idea what you mean by ‘US sphere countries’ but I don’t support censorship in general (including of Russian state-controlled media, ie all of it) except for direct calls for violence against individuals etc.
Well at least you mentioned Yemen.
But you could also have mentioned many other countries the US in particular has tried to “liberate and democratise” – Iraq, Syria, Libya, Palestine, Vietnam, Korea.
Whenever any US president has tried to take on its industrial/arms cabal they’ve been bumped off (Kennedy, Vietnam) or silenced (Trump ).
All those exercises resulted only in countless death and destruction.
One cannot blame Russia for being a little worried that the same could happen to them.
“The whole conflict inducing nation-state system should be replaced with peaceable regional administrations”
Yes, let’s have the technocrats in charge and reduce democracy so that it only has the power to decide whether our sugar free juice is red or blue – like the adult toddlers the technocrats see the rest of society as.
That’s working so well in the European Union.
By regional I simply meant localised, and that could include current countries – but transformed from their nation-state structure ultimately resting on armed force (having an army is a prerequisite of UN membership) into peaceable administrations similar to current local government.
The EU was originally set up to encourage trade and reduce national enmities, I am entirely opposed to its attempts to turn itself into a largely non-democratic super-state.
Technocracies (such the USSR and communist China, the modern UK’s imposition of poverty-inducing measures based on the pseudo-science of Climate Change plus its recent elevation of SAGE to a near totalitarian status) rest on the ultimately violence-based nation state system which I wish to see replaced with peaceful administrations.
No, the Daily Sceptic should be focused on analysing narratives being conveyed by the UK establishment and media.
And whether you agree with the Russian action or not, you’d have to be blind or brainwashed to say that what we’re seeing employed isn’t straight from the Covid playbook – one single narrative, alternative views shut down, dissenters persecuted and pure emotive propaganda.
At least you’ve reached the correct conclusion in wishing for a speedy ceasefire and peace settlement, unlike the fat war criminal in Number 10 and the rest of this disgraceful establishment.
I also have issues with the nation state system and nationalism, but unfortunately international institutions have been hijacked and at present represent a far greater threat to our future than the nation state model.
By the way – thank you for your piece, Noah. Your analysis is brief, but correct.
It’s time for the sun to set on the USA. They’ve caused enough misery in the world.
Let someone else have a turn?
If we are ever going to rise to something better, we really need to stop describing the actions of a small group of elites as the actions of a country.
Russia didn’t invade Ukraine. Putin and his people did. Regardless of what polls might say now, I’m sure you ask Russian people back in February whether they should invade Ukraine and most would have said no.
The US and UK didn’t invade Iraq. The neo-con establishment did. I don’t feel at all represented by Blair or his actions in Iraq. I didn’t invade Iraq. He did.
Aspects of what the USA has are worth preserving – the belief in small government is more widespread there than in many places.
The belief is nice, but the reality is the CIA and FBI etc. have simply been coopted to run the country with no democratic overview.
The USA’s foreign policy over the past 50 years, has been a disgrace. It has brought untold misery to millions.
100 years actually.
Even according to Churchill. https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/elite-arrogance-incompetence-and-willful-ignorance-leading-to-unintended-consequences/
And the UK has dutifully supported each carnage the USA has illegally unleashed in the expectation it will get a few crumbs from post conflict reparations contracts or weapons sales. Or simply at an individual level, whereby our spineless lackey leader of the day can have their poodle legacy via lecture tours or peace foundations. After Covid and the vaxx outrage the UK should be sanctioning itself, especially its political elites.
In fairness, there’s not much separation between the US and UK elites.
Like any dog on a leash there’s about two to three yards of separation, but unlike many often independently minded sovereign pooches the UK can only dutifully follow behind their transatlantic masters; except when forced to play fetch with live munitions.
https://www.thepostil.com/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine/
Who are ‘we’? Perhaps the USA’s cohorts in crime like the UK, each flooding Zelensky’s slave trading utopia with more and more weapons, but never having the spine to openly declare war against Russia? Then again the UK was collaborating with Nazi Germany up until the inconvenient Polish invasion.
BTW, Crimea voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia, it’s a done deal and nothing to do with Ukraine let alone NATO anymore. Not that such a democratic choice stopped the US puppet government in Kiev from denying fresh water supplies to Crimea for years until Russia blew up the dam last month.
Or do you mean concessions like slapping Azov on the wrist and telling them to stop blanket bombing and land-mining the two self declared Donbass republics?
The undemocratic Kiev puppet government is openly corrupt and more than casually fascist, and the UK should be sanctioning it not Russia. But nobody on the DS team seems to be able to stray beyond the ‘Russia bad’ western narrative, as this absurdly naive article once again demonstrates.
Why would Russia bother with nuclear weapons when an even more effective method of driving the whole of western Europe into complete chaos would be to switch off the gas?
There is no justification for nuclear retaliation by the west.
If America wanted to help Europe it would be forced to abandon all Biden’s plans for a green and pleasant future, and reinstate fracking and oil/gas production. Even then, Germany has no port facilities to land LPG.
Why would any country engage in an entirely self destructive nuclear conflict when the result would be that the gas supply would be entirely disrupted anyway?
More colour on the ‘strategists’, realism etc. below.
The strategists might have thought they could reach their goals by provoking only, without actually getting a hot war, although they really don’t care if they get one either.
Their huge mistake was their hubris-born neglect of the consequences of pushing Russia into the corner: the alliance with China, India etc., exacerbated by their illegal, criminal and only suicidal sanctions leading to de-dollarization and, soon, social unrest in the West, possibly followed by its division when Hungary, Romania and Poland accept Ukraimian territory and when Germans refuse to continue to commit US/UK ordered harakiri.
Again, with nihilist idi*ts like them, who needs enemies?!
But the MIC and OGMC in the West certainly actively schemed for and deliberately WANTED this invasion to actually happen, that’s what even the realists like Mearsheimer can’t bring themselves to admit yet, despite it being so obvious and being the main answer to asking Cui bono?.
https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/the-pimps-of-war?s=r
https://wemeantwell.com/blog/2022/04/10/draft-speech-deterrence-china-and-the-u-s/
https://www.anti-spiegel.ru/2022/wie-geopolitik-funktioniert-und-worum-es-in-der-ukraine-wirklich-geht/?doing_wp_cron=1649668023.7548010349273681640625
But come on now folks… all of this…all of everything that WE hear, read and see so clearly…it’s all simply governmental incompetence. Globally.!
Any sign the anti-war left has hit the pavements? I’m looking, but I see no sign of the principled left on the pavements. Am I missing something? Could it be that all along the ‘anti-war’ rhetoric really meant, ‘Well, only the wars unsuited to our ideology’?
Take a moment to marvel at the principled left. Love ’em.
Addendum: I understand there will be principled leftists on here. I’m not bashing you.
Quite honestly, MR – I have no idea what’s happened to them. Perhaps, like old soldiers, they haven’t died; they’ve just faded away.
There were never that many genuine peaceniks. Most had sympathies with one side or another; or at least against one side. The left used to be deeply suspicious of the United States. Now, as far as I know, their enemies are people who don’t take “saving the planet” seriously, or are not sensitive and sympathetic to gender identity issues.
Some of them were bloody good sorts. You’d have liked them. Prone to singing “The people’s flag is deepest red” at the drop of a hat and calling people “Comrade” at meetings, but actually doing the hard yards on things like affordable housing.
I like his perspicacity but I would argue that the chances of nuclear confrontation are closer to forty percent. There is a view that has become very widespread in recent decades that a nuclear war is essentially winnable. A billion might die but who cares as long as strategic objectives are met. There is also the Thanatos drive, the yearning for annihilation that many people feel and understandably so. They wish that we could escape this kaleidoscope of hell and somehow start again, the vaxxed more gung-ho for war for whatever reason. I think that in the coming months there will be increasing acquiesence to the idea of nuclear war as a relief from the hell of existence.
Zelensky Says Unnamed Leader of EU Member State Asked for Proof Bucha Wasn’t Staged
https://dailystormer.cn/zelensky-says-unnamed-leader-of-eu-member-state-asked-for-proof-bucha-wasnt-staged/
Andrew Anglin
Stand by the road for freedom with our Yellow Boards next events
Tuesday 12th April 5.30pm to 6.30pm
Yellow Boards
Junction Broad Lane/
A3095 Bagshot Lane
Bracknell RG12 9NW
Thursday 14th April 3pm to 4pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A329 Reading Rd
& Station Approach
Wokingham RG41 1EH
Stand in the Park Sundays from 10am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham Howard Palmer Gardens
(Cockpit Path car park free on Sunday)
Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
All politicians who get into power want to impose their views on others, some for the good of all but mostly for the good of themselves, and press to expand their influence into other countries, through diplomacy, bribery, financial takeover or conflict. Countries are tribal. Most borders reflect the result of war between tribes. That the USA and Russia manoeuvred to influence Ukraine is hardly unexpected. That NATO had any designs on Russia is laughable; their only crime was to be a defensive alliance that stood in the way of Putin’s ambitions to forge a new empire.
Putin had a chip on his shoulder over the collapse of the USSR and has had for decades worked to reform a Russian empire. He has used all means, fair and foul, to take over Ukraine, this invasion being a final throw of the dice.
Responsibility for the invasion and the horrors of Russian occupation lies with Putin alone. He was aided and abetted by a naive Europe, particularly Germany, who fooled themselves into thinking that international trade would bind him into playing by their rules. There is no easy solution and the fallout will last for decades.
China’s laughing all the way to the bank.
It makes no sense whatsoever that the largest country in the world would want a few acres of Ukrainian land to somehow expand it empire.
Utter nonsense.
Primary school analysis
Dear Professor Mearsheimer, can you please either hide in your basement in case these children’s scare stories scare you or stop retelling them because they’re not scaring anyone else and the moral bankruptcy of believing Ukraine is one of your toys you can barter away (or not) at your chosing is very annoying. After a statement which basically parses as Reality is irrelevant, only what I tell you about what Putin must be believing matters! further statements of opinion from you about any particular topic are not being requested.
We’ve really had enough of this childish propaganda during the so-called Corona pandemic. It doesn’t get any better when employed by other parties.
You have a situation where in physical terms, those wishing for war are those who are the least well-built for combat. What does that tell you? Perhaps you should look into the idea of egregores. They never teach us about occultism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbr3CiOhTO8
“Russia has been in a near constant state of war or military expansionism since the 1500s. “
The US Has Been at war 225 out of 243 years since 1776.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/595752-the-us-has-been-at-war-225-out-of-243-years-since-1776
Dishonest or moronic.
He basically creates a fantasy about what he declares the Russians “require”, escalating from the Russians saying “no NATO forces positioned in” to “de facto Russian control of”.
In fact the Russians have been quite prepared to tolerate plenty of NATO presence, without liking it but without causing trouble over it for years. As Mearsheimer points out, they swallowed essentially all of first three waves of NATO expansion, but balked at Ukraine and Georgia.
He also openly lies, talking about “civilian obliteration program” and “reducing cities to rubble”, when only nazi occupied Mariupol has even been assaulted so far, the rest either peacefully occupied or bypassed.
Embarrassing stuff!
Oh please, find some professional news channel to watch, this is ridiculous
Get lost troll.
The danger sign for the past eight years has been that the US and its satellites refused to recognise the results of the thoroughly legitimate referendums in Luhansk (96% pro independence) and Donetsk (89%), both with a 75% turnout, and instead they turned a blind eye (to put it mildly) to the neo-Nazi forces who have been fighting against those republics, neo-Nazis who are no longer paramilitary because they are part of the Ukrainian army. Said forces are now highly battle-hardened. Meanwhile in the Crimea 97% voted to rejoin the Russian Federation, on an 83% turnout, but the western position on the Crimea (“occupied by Russia”) is mostly propagandistic icing on the cake, aimed at idiots in their home audiences who can’t be a*sed to find out a single thing about that part of the world, rather than translating to legitimising one side in a war there that isn’t being fought.
That the US rulers want escalation is clear from what their NATO mouthpiece has been saying and doing…
A good series of extracts from various discussions of Russia’s intentions and motivations, from Bernhard at MoonofAlabama:
The Reasons For And Dangers Behind The War In Ukraine
…
Sergey Karaganov is a high level Russian political scientist and commentator who is also a presidential advisor in Moscow. He was interviewed (in English) by the Italian Corriere Della Sera:
…
It was clear that Ukraine had become something like Germany around 1936-1937,” said Karaganov. The ‘western’ public has difficulties to understand that. But it is the prevailing Russian view and when analyzing the developments in the Ukraine over the last years with Russian history in mind one can easily come to the same conclusion.
It is also what the Canadian Russia expert Patrick Armstrong had mentioned as the most important item after he had read Putin’s speeches at the start of the war:
The Russian view is not really that far fetched.”
And in conclusion, a bit of optimism:
“Towards the end of a talk with Gonzalo Lira former Marine officer and UN Inspector Scott Ritter disputes the potential for escalation. The Pentagon, he says, knows the real situation on the ground and that the Ukrainian army will lose the war. Neither NATO, nor the U.S. nor single countries like Poland have their forces configured in a way that would allow them to successfully wage war against Russia. They would need more time to get ready than Russia will need to win the war in Ukraine.
Ritter predicts that the Pentagon will overrule any escalation the Ukraine warmongers in the State Department and National Security Council may plan and that those responsible for the current mess, Victoria Nuland, Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan, will get silenced or removed after the midterms.
I hope he is right.”
Amen!
(Embedded links in original)
Ritter is right. The Russians didn’t go into Ukraine thinking they could lose a war against a fourth rate military power with limited budget and no backup.
Amongst all the negotiations over the years about the country, Russia has been planning this invasion down to the nth degree.
So what happens ultimately?
Russia is somehow defeated in Ukraine, slinks back home and in retaliation reduces western Europe to a wasteland, within weeks, by switching off their gas.
Expensive for Russia, but a damn site more expensive for western Europe which can’t afford for Russia to be defeated.
Few in the west barely knew where Ukraine was, far less cared. So much so that whilst wailing about ethnic cleansing across the world, not a peep from them about the Donbass. Why might that be? Because it was Russian’s who were being murdered and politically, the Russians must remain the bogey man.
So there’s a list of the West’s evil machinations, but no list of the aggressive actions, the invasions and assassinations by Putin’s Russia over the years?
The omission of such vital contextual material means Noah has written yet another flawed and biased article. Why? Because he is apparently infected by the same cultural self-loathing that drives the liberal left in the West. If there’s a problem, be it racism, climate change or the war in Ukraine, it MUST be our fault!
If it’s true that the Zelensky government is an illegitimate puppet regime, why did the Ukrainian people overwhelmingly vote for him in 2019 (in a proper election, not a Russia-type election)?
The Russian invasion simply demonstrates how correct Zelensky was to want to join NATO. If Ukraine has done so prior to the invasion, Putin would never have dared invade. Ukraine would be at peace, not a single one of those poor people dead, not a single building destroyed, every town and city beautiful and intact.
All those poor people would still be alive, going about their normal daily business.
Mearsheimer is an apologist for Russia and it seems Marxism
Based on !!
It’s just as ‘dangerous’ as it needs to be.
bullshit story.
first define “russia losing”.
as long as there are no ukrainian troops marching for moscow russia is not losing.
putin can withdraw all the troops within a day and in doing so stop the war.
but as long as he sees chances of winning the war he will not do so.
and sending western weapons and support to ukraine makes it that his chances of winning are getting slimmer by the day.
every russian tank destroyed in ukraine will not be there when putin invades the next victim…..
Good article- we need more like this to get the truth across!