Politics Will Russia Attack Ukraine?

Malaparte · Mar 9, 2022

Angela said:
Nobody who wants to live in a red state would have supported the Wall Street protestors, PERIOD!

I live on Long Island, now in an admittedly more "reddish" town than previously, but still a northeastern town, and if you walked around the streets of our downtown center spouting the anti-American trash that you've posted on this site, well, God help you. Every third house in this town sports a HUGE American flag on their property; I'm sure the percentages are higher in Missouri. They don't like that sort of thing.

Nobody with your political views on America would be caught dead in a real Red State.

Stop pretending.

Or if you're not pretending, you're an extremely confused man; cognitive dissonance doesn't begin to cover it. Also, get used to having no clients as soon as your views become known.

It's one thing to not want to get into a European conflict; it's another to trash talk America constantly. Go to Vermont if you want to get away with that crap.

Oh, and by the way, Missouri is as much Southern as it is midwestern, and way more "RED" than a lot of Midwestern states.

Malaparte · Mar 9, 2022

Excerpts from long article by Archbishop Vigano, former Apostolic Nuncio to the US, and perhaps the only spiritual leader in what remains of the West worthy of deference.

Nothing is lost with peace. All can be lost with war. Let men return to understanding. Let them resume negotiating. Negotiating with good will and with respect for each other’s rights, let them realize that an honorable success is never precluded when there are sincere and active negotiations. And they will feel great – with true greatness – if imposing silence on the voices of passion, whether collective or private, and leaving reason to its proper domain, they will spare their brothers bloodshed and their homeland ruin.

Thus it was that on August 24, 1939, Pius XII addressed both rulers and peoples as war was imminent. These were not words of empty pacifism, nor of complicit silence about the multiple violations of justice that were being carried out in many quarters. In that radio message, which some people still remember hearing, the appeal of the Roman Pontiff invoked “respect for each other’s rights” as a prerequisite for fruitful peace negotiations.

If we look at what is happening in Ukraine, without being misled by the gross falsifications of the mainstream media, we realize that respect for each other’s rights has been completely ignored; indeed, we have the impression that the Biden Administration, NATO and the European Union deliberately want to maintain a situation of obvious imbalance, precisely to make impossible any attempt at a peaceful resolution of the Ukrainian crisis, provoking the Russian Federation to trigger a conflict. Herein lies the seriousness of the problem. This is the trap set for both Russia and Ukraine, using both of them to enable the globalist elite to carry out its criminal plan.

It should not surprise us that pluralism and freedom of speech, so praised in countries that claim to be democratic, are daily disavowed by censorship and intolerance towards opinions not aligned with the official narrative. Manipulations of this kind have become the norm during the so-called pandemic, to the detriment of doctors, scientists and dissenting journalists, who have been discredited and ostracized for the mere fact of daring to question the effectiveness of experimental serums. Two years later, the truth about the adverse effects and the unfortunate management of the health emergency has proven them right, but the truth is stubbornly ignored because it does not correspond to what the system wanted and still wants today.

If the world media have so far been able to lie shamelessly on a matter of strict scientific relevance, spreading lies and hiding reality, we should ask ourselves why, in the present situation, they should suddenly rediscover that intellectual honesty and respect for the code of ethics widely denied with COVID.

We come then to the Ukraine crisis, which is presented to us as a consequence of Vladimir Putin’s expansionist arrogance towards an independent and democratic nation over which he is trying to claim absurd rights. The “warmonger Putin” is said to be massacring the defenseless population, who have courageously arisen to defend the soil of their homeland, the sacred borders of their nation and the violated freedoms of the citizens. The European Union and the United States, “defenders of democracy,” are therefore said to be unable not to intervene by means of NATO to restore Ukraine’s autonomy, drive out the “invader” and guarantee peace. In the face of the “tyrant’s arrogance,” it is said that the peoples of the world ought to form a common front, imposing sanctions on the Russian Federation and sending soldiers, weapons and economic aid to “poor” President Zelenskyy, “national hero” and “defender” of his people. As proof of Putin’s “violence,” the media spread images of bombings, military searches, and destruction, attributing responsibility to Russia. And there’s still more: precisely in order to guarantee a “lasting peace,” the European Union and NATO are opening wide their arms to welcome Ukraine as members. And in order to prevent “Soviet propaganda”, Europe is now blacking out Russia Today and Sputnik, in order to ensure that information is “free and independent."

This is the official narrative, to which everyone conforms. Being at war, dissent immediately becomes desertion, and those who dissent are guilty of treason and deserving of more or less serious sanctions, starting with public execration and ostracism, well experienced with COVID against those who are “un-vaxxed”. But the truth, if you want to know it, allows us to see things differently and to judge the facts for what they are and not for how they are presented to us. This is a true and proper unveiling, as indicated by the etymology of the Greek word ἀλήθεια. Or perhaps, with an eschatological gaze, a revelation, an ἀποκάλυψις.

The current Ukrainian crisis entails secondary, but no less serious, consequences on the geopolitical balance between China and Taiwan. Russia and Ukraine are the only producers of palladium and neon, which are indispensable for the production of microchips.

Moscow’s possible retaliation has attracted more attention in recent days after market research group Techcet published a report highlighting the dependence of many semiconductor manufacturers on materials of Russian and Ukrainian origin such as neon, palladium and others. According to Techcet’s estimates, more than 90% of U.S. supplies of semiconductor neon come from Ukraine, while 35% of U.S. palladium comes from Russia. […] According to the US International Trade Commission, neon prices rose by 600% before Russia’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014, because chip companies relied on some Ukrainian companies […]
If it is true that a Chinese invasion of Formosa would put the global technology supply chain at risk, it is also true that a sudden shortage of raw materials from Russia could stop production, so as to make the island lose the “microchip shield” and induce Beijing to attempt the annexation of Taipei. (SOURCE)

Let the Ukrainian people look at what has happened to the nations of the European Union: the mirage of prosperity and security is demolished by the contemplation of the rubble left by the Euro and the lobbies of Brussels. Nations invaded by illegal immigrants who feed crime and prostitution; destroyed in their social fabric by politically correct ideologies; knowingly brought to bankruptcy by reckless economic and fiscal policies; led towards poverty by the cancellation of labor and social security protections; deprived of a future by the destruction of the family and the moral and intellectual corruption of the new generations.What were once prosperous and independent nations, diverse in their respective ethnic, linguistic, cultural, and religious specificities, have now been transformed into a shapeless mass of people without ideals, without hopes, without faith, without even the strength to react against the abuses and crimes of those who govern them. A mass of corporate customers, slaves of the system of detailed control imposed by the pandemic farce, even in the face of evidence of the fraud. A mass of persons without individual identity, marked with QR codes like animals on an intensive farm, like products of a huge shopping center. If this has been the result of the renunciation of national sovereignty for all the nations – every single one, without exception! – that have entrusted themselves to the colossal scam of the European Union, why would Ukraine be any different?
Is this what your fathers wanted, what they hoped for, what they desired, when they received Baptism along with Vladimir the Great on the banks of the Dnieper?
If there is a positive aspect that each of us can recognize in this crisis, it is that it has revealed the horror of the globalist tyranny, its ruthless cynicism, its capacity to destroy and annihilate everything it touches. It is not the Ukrainians who ought to enter the European Union or NATO, it is rather the other nations who ought to finally be jolted by pride and courage to leave them, shaking off this detestable yoke and rediscovering their own independence, sovereignty, identity, and faith. Their own souls.

The United States of America and the European nations should not marginalize Russia, but rather form an alliance with her, not only for the restoration of trade for the prosperity of all, but in view of the reconstruction of a Christian civilization, which alone can save the world from the globalist techno-health transhuman monster.

There is great concern that the destinies of the peoples of the world is in the hands of an elite that is not accountable to anyone for its decisions, that does not recognize any authority above itself, and that in order to pursue its own interests does not hesitate to jeopardize security, the economy, and the very lives of billions of people, with the complicity of politicians in their service and the mainstream media. The falsification of facts, the grotesque adulterations of reality, and the partisanship with which the news is spread stand alongside the censorship of dissenting voices and leads to forms of ethnic persecution against Russian citizens, who are discriminated against precisely in the countries that say they are democratic and respectful of fundamental rights.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...establish-the-tyranny-of-the-new-world-order/

Malaparte · Mar 9, 2022

My overall position on the Ukraine crisis, I will confess, is not entirely coherent. Rather than take one position, I prefer to draw a triangle with three basic takes.

First, the sober realism of John Mearsheimer, George Kennan, Pat Buchanan, and others

Second, the fevered paranoia of a David Icke, the anti-WEF-ism of abp. Vigano (he would call it anti-satanism) --> in earlier years I would have rejected their words as crazed prophecy, now I listen attentively

So take your pick, elite malfeasance or elite incompetence?

https://odysee.com/@AlanTracy:8/The-theatre-of-war-designed-to-bring-down-economies-:f

Third, insofar as I am a nationalist, I have no love for Putin. This is a summation of the nationalist position on the conflict

The confrontation between Putin’s Russia and the “liberal” West is real and based on conflicting and competing globalist visions.

Both sides are anti-national and anti-traditional. Both sides incorporate delusional globalist ideas and insane beliefs in a universalist deracinated society. The only disagreement between them is over which faction should command the globalist world.

Both sides are offshoots of the post-WW2 world order based on the negation of traditional European values and false “humanist” ideals. Both sides perceive racial/ethnic identity as a great threat to their agenda.

Ukraine (like other east European countries) is caught between those two competing monsters, and is compelled by circumstances to choose sides between them.

Ukrainian nationalists struggle against the real threat of hostile power from the east (they are not puppets, as Russian propaganda and its conservative Western parrots depict them). In essence, this is a continuation of the wars fought in 1918-1920 and 1941-1955 (guerilla warfare against the Soviet terror state), with the same actors and the same ideals. In this particular case, Russia represents a globalist force and Ukraine is the side that fights for its national identity.

There is a global dimension to this Russian-Ukrainian war. If viewed from this perspective where Ukraine is an ally of NATO and the USA, Russia looks more like a righteous defender of identity that struggles against the globalist system. Therefore, this whole question is multifaceted and can’t be evaluated as a simple phenomenon.

Putin’s regime is a successor to the Soviet state in all its aspects. Modern Russia has nothing in common with Tsarist Russia, except for some state symbols borrowed from the Russian empire

This state inherited all the anti-Russian characteristics of its Soviet predecessor. It would not be an exaggeration to assert that Putin’s state is systemically anti-Russian because it is built on the assumption that the main threat against the state emanates from any awakening of Russian identity. Therefore, it does everything in its power to suppress Russian ethnic identity. The ongoing ethnic replacement policy is the logical outcome of this systemic mindset. In this way, both systems (Russian and American) are strikingly similar. Both systems consider their own native populations to be the main threat facing them.

Another nationalist critique of Putin's Russia -->

First and foremost, the reason why the USSR’s government was full of non-Russians is that the Russian empire conquered those lands. Non-Russians enjoyed positions of power over Russians and conquered lands under the Empire, under the USSR, and under the current Russian Federation because that is the way of all imperial systems. To point to powerful Germans and Swedes, Jews and Georgians, Uzbeks and Ukrainians in Russia and say “See, it is not a Russian government” is disingenuous. It is precisely a Russian government, because Russia is an empire, and that’s the kind of government empires have.

Third, Putin’s rise to power, the Russian Federation has built and defended monuments to the Red Army and defended Stalin and his crimes. One of Putin’s first acts as President in 2000 was to call a meeting at Stalin’s Dacha at Kuntsevo, sit down at Stalin’s desk, and tell the Russian oligarchs who is boss. Asserting state power over those looters was a good thing. But he could have chosen any number of other role models besides Stalin. You may want to scapegoat Jews and Georgians for the horrors of the USSR, but they were only there because of the Russian imperial system, and Putin now owns that system, including the USSR and its horrors. You might want to claim that Russia has changed since Communism, and, of course, it has in many ways. But Putin insists on continuities, and we can’t blame Russia’s neighbors for taking him at his word.
The bottom line: Russia has always been an empire, and with Empires come multiculturalism and multicultural ruling elites. Ukrainians suffered a lot at the hands of the Russian machine in the past, and they have no reason to think that it has changed. Ukrainians don’t fear or hate ordinary Russians, who are pretty much all victims of the same system. But they definitely hate the Russian system. This is why it is reasonable for Ukrainians and other captive people to want into NATO to keep the Russians out.
The people on the right who attempt to absolve the Russian system by claiming that its crimes under Communism were historical aberrations caused by foreigners are ignoring the imperial nature of the Russian system before, during, and after the USSR.

Malaparte · Mar 9, 2022

German dissident journalist Eugyppius' take --->>

The system-globalists don’t recognise the legitimacy of Russian strategic interests, or the legitimacy of anybody’s strategic interests. Globalists do not have security concerns in that way. Many of them even believe their own hollow rhetoric, that they are spreading freedom and democracy, even after these last two years of experimentation in forced vaccination and intermittent mass house arrest. Even if they don’t believe all of that about democracy, they nevertheless imagine that they are missionaries of light and goodness to all peoples everywhere, and that human potential will only be fully realised, when every last Russian is on Facebook and subscribed to Amazon Prime.
The global American empire doesn’t invade; that is not what systems do. It assimilates. It is basically a borg that imposes economic and political constraints on an ever expanding expanse of the globe, which progressively fatten, distract and deracinate populations, with a view towards blending them into the same shallow multinational consumerist soup. Their plan was to make Ukraine part of the borg, and in this way further encroach upon Russia. Russia responded in political fashion, by taking up arms. Because the western borg never knows when to stop, Ukraine will now be destroyed and probably partitioned, as a means of keeping it forever outside the western globalist fold.

https://www.eugyppius.com/p/ukraine-and-the-global-american-empire?s=r

and Michael Hudson, perhaps the last Marxist in America ---->>>

Nobody thought that the postwar 1945-2020 world order would give way this fast. A truly new international economic order is emerging, although it is not yet clear just what form it will take. But “prodding the Bear” with the U.S./NATO confrontation with Russia has passed critical-mass level. It no longer is just about Ukraine. That is merely the trigger, a catalyst for driving much of the world away from the U.S./NATO orbit.The next showdown may come within Europe itself as nationalist politicians seek to lead a break-away from the over-reaching U.S. power-grab over its European and other Allies to keep them dependent on U.S.-based trade and investment. The price of their continuing obedience is to impose cost-inflation on their industry while relinquishing their democratic electoral politics to subordination to America’s NATO proconsuls.
These consequences cannot really be deemed “unintended.” Too many observers have pointed out exactly what would happen–headed by President Putin and Foreign Secretary Lavrov explaining just what their response would be if NATO insisted in backing them into a corner while attacking Eastern Ukrainian Russian-speakers and moving heavy weaponry to Russia’s Western border. The consequences were anticipated. The neocons in control of U.S. foreign policy simply didn’t care. Recognizing its concerns was deemed to make one a Putinversteher.

Trying to force Russia to respond militarily and thereby look bad to the rest of the world is turning out to be a stunt aimed simply at demonstrating Europe’s need to contribute more to NATO, buy more U.S. military hardware and lock itself deeper into trade and monetary dependence on the United States. The instability that this has caused could have the effect of making the United States look as threatening as Russia.

European officials did not feel uncomfortable in telling the world about their worries that Donald Trump was crazy and upsetting the apple cart of international diplomacy. But they seem to have been blindsided at the Biden Administration’s resurgence of visceral Russia-hatred by Secretary of State Blinken and Victoria Nuland-Kagan. Trump’s mode of expression and mannerisms may have been uncouth, but America’s neocon gang has much more globally threatening confrontation obsessions. For them, it was a question of whose reality would emerge victorious: the “reality” that they believed they could make, or economic reality outside of U.S. control.

https://mronline.org/2022/03/08/america-shoots-its-own-dollar-empire-in-economic-attack-on-russia/

Northener · Mar 9, 2022

Riverman said:
Another lecture from Mearsheimer, those which don't want to listen all three, or not even this full episode, go to the last 10 minutes, he told it back then and it came true:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESwIVY2oimI&t=0s

And the USA never acted any different if they thought its in their geostrategical interest.

One thing I remember form colleges about East European history that in Russia there is always a kind of pendule in Russian politics: one in which the western idea's etc are be sucked up like a sponge, see Czar Peter's visit to Amsterdam, Catherine the Great. And one with a backlash, in which Russia's own roots and a certain resentment get stressed, see Stalin see Putin. Of course simplified, but I think it makes sense.

Northener · Mar 9, 2022

Malaparte said:
My overall position on the Ukraine crisis, I will confess, is not entirely coherent. Rather than take one position, I prefer to draw a triangle with three basic takes.

Malaparte said:
First, the sober realism of John Mearsheimer, George Kennan, Pat Buchanan, and others

Second, the fevered paranoia of a David Icke, the anti-WEF-ism of abp. Vigano (he would call it anti-satanism) --> in earlier years I would have rejected their words as crazed prophecy, now I listen attentively

So take your pick, elite malfeasance or elite incompetence?

https://odysee.com/@AlanTracy:8/The-theatre-of-war-designed-to-bring-down-economies-:f

Third, insofar as I am a nationalist, I have no love for Putin. This is a summation of the nationalist position on the conflict
Another nationalist critique of Putin's Russia -->

Malaparte said:
German dissident journalist Eugyppius' take --->>

https://www.eugyppius.com/p/ukraine-and-the-global-american-empire?s=r

and Michael Hudson, perhaps the last Marxist in America ---->>>

https://mronline.org/2022/03/08/america-shoots-its-own-dollar-empire-in-economic-attack-on-russia/

Les extrêmes se touchent!

Riverman · Mar 9, 2022

Northener said:
One thing I remember form colleges about East European history that in Russia there is always a kind of pendule in Russian politics: one in which the western idea's etc are be sucked up like a sponge, see Czar Peter's visit to Amsterdam, Catherine the Great. And one with a backlash, in which Russia's own roots and a certain resentment get stressed, see Stalin see Putin. Of course simplified, but I think it makes sense.

We shouldn't forget the recent history. Putin made an attempt to join the Western alliance and even NATO, but it was refused. Because like some put it in the past, the EU and NATO exists to keep Germany in and Russia out. That way both can be controlled, which was the original concept behind it. When Russia tried to join, at a time Russia was still far more open and Western oriented, they just got a brush-off and being told explicitly that the NATO expansion was happening because of the Eastern European countries concerns about Russia, which didn't wanted Russia in.
So the West made clear that they have no interest to integrate a stronger Russian state into the alliance and NATO being explicitly directed against Russia. In what followed they began to encircle Russia and effectively starting a new Cold War, especially the US made all steps in that direction.

Just like how the war got escalated now, not started, it started 8 years ago, by Russia not just because of "Putin becoming mad" or crap like that, and not just because of Russian sentiments, the turn away of Russia from the West was the consequence of concrete actions especially by the USA in the last decades. They left Russia no space to breath any more and showed no genuinly friendly intentions, with the Yeltsin shame and destruction still in the minds of all Russians and Putins as well.

The current situation just makes things way worse and we heard recently what Selenski said: He will continue the fight against Russia at all cost and not give up on on inch of the country - even those parts which will be hostile to his regime anyway, which they probably will/have to ethnically cleanse in the case of a victory. I mean seriously, that guy is minimum as mad as Putin and he cares not about the Ukrainians, not at all. They are pawns for his, the oligarchs and US services plans to weaken or even destroy Russia.

As for Gerhard Schroeder, you mentioned earlier, he really is an opportunist politically, but he seems to be a personal friend of Putin also. And he knows the situation, the real situation, better than many others. Which means, in this case, you just know that Russia isn't responsible for the escalation on its own, because with every turn, the Selenski regime escalated and made clear it wants a violent solution. Russia had just the options of watching while everything gets worse or acting in a way which would cause all the consequences we see right now. They were put deliberately in this situation with no peaceful solution in sight. Selenski is a cynic which knew that and calculated from the start that he can bring all of Russia to its knees. He know sacrifices the Ukrainian people for that goal, as the did the US policy. Nobody could have been as stupid as to not know the consequences if acting that way, being such a confrontational hardliner. If they don't even compromise on Crimea, its looking grim, because I think Russia is now ready to sacrifice to practically any level to not lose its honour and even if Putin would be gone, any new leader would be seen as traitor and complete loser if even losing Crimea. That could escalate to a much worse level for the world and this morons play with fire for nothing. The Crimeans don't want to be part of the "new Ukraine"! That's just another "I want my country as big as possible, regardless of who lives there and whether they want to belong to it" imperialist approach. Russia wants to keep Ukraine down and Ukraine wants Crimea and Donbas down. And for that crap we get now in this level of a conflict, they even deliver jets and cut off all contacts with Russia? We might need these contacts if it gets to the next level, which would be solely the fault of the Selenski regime and the hardliners, because they offer no viable compromise at all.

Northener · Mar 9, 2022

Riverman said:
We shouldn't forget the recent history. Putin made an attempt to join the Western alliance and even NATO, but it was refused. Because like some put it in the past, the EU and NATO exists to keep Germany in and Russia out. That way both can be controlled, which was the original concept behind it. When Russia tried to join, at a time Russia was still far more open and Western oriented, they just got a brush-off and being told explicitly that the NATO expansion was happening because of the Eastern European countries concerns about Russia, which didn't wanted Russia in.
So the West made clear that they have no interest to integrate a stronger Russian state into the alliance and NATO being explicitly directed against Russia. In what followed they began to encircle Russia and effectively starting a new Cold War, especially the US made all steps in that direction.

Just like how the war got escalated now, not started, it started 8 years ago, by Russia not just because of "Putin becoming mad" or crap like that, and not just because of Russian sentiments, the turn away of Russia from the West was the consequence of concrete actions especially by the USA in the last decades. They left Russia no space to breath any more and showed no genuinly friendly intentions, with the Yeltsin shame and destruction still in the minds of all Russians and Putins as well.

The current situation just makes things way worse and we heard recently what Selenski said: He will continue the fight against Russia at all cost and not give up on on inch of the country - even those parts which will be hostile to his regime anyway, which they probably will/have to ethnically cleanse in the case of a victory. I mean seriously, that guy is minimum as mad as Putin and he cares not about the Ukrainians, not at all. They are pawns for his, the oligarchs and US services plans to weaken or even destroy Russia.

As for Gerhard Schroeder, you mentioned earlier, he really is an opportunist politically, but he seems to be a personal friend of Putin also. And he knows the situation, the real situation, better than many others. Which means, in this case, you just know that Russia isn't responsible for the escalation on its own, because with every turn, the Selenski regime escalated and made clear it wants a violent solution. Russia had just the options of watching while everything gets worse or acting in a way which would cause all the consequences we see right now. They were put deliberately in this situation with no peaceful solution in sight. Selenski is a cynic which knew that and calculated from the start that he can bring all of Russia to its knees. He know sacrifices the Ukrainian people for that goal, as the did the US policy. Nobody could have been as stupid as to not know the consequences if acting that way, being such a confrontational hardliner. If they don't even compromise on Crimea, its looking grim, because I think Russia is now ready to sacrifice to practically any level to not lose its honour and even if Putin would be gone, any new leader would be seen as traitor and complete loser if even losing Crimea. That could escalate to a much worse level for the world and this morons play with fire for nothing. The Crimeans don't want to be part of the "new Ukraine"! That's just another "I want my country as big as possible, regardless of who lives there and whether they want to belong to it" imperialist approach. Russia wants to keep Ukraine down and Ukraine wants Crimea and Donbas down. And for that crap we get now in this level of a conflict, they even deliver jets and cut off all contacts with Russia? We might need these contacts if it gets to the next level, which would be solely the fault of the Selenski regime and the hardliners, because they offer no viable compromise at all.

I don't know any serous attempt of Putin to join NATO. But how intentional this would be? Putin's dramatic moment is the fall of the wall, from KGB spy in Germany to taxi driver and then the way to the top. The revanchist agenda is (make Russia great again

most core Putin's conviction imo. NATO is a defense treaty of the 'free world', Putin's Russia is no part in that.

Gerhard Schröder has a same kind of preference for authoritarian leadership as Putin and Trump. He likes to be the top dog, and the rest is "Nebensache". This has lead to a Faustian bargain...

Riverman · Mar 9, 2022

Northener said:
I don't know any serous attempt of Putin to join NATO. But how intentional this would be?

The point is Russia tried and got blocked. Same with the EU treaty which caused the escalation 2014. NATO said they would allow Ukraine to join and the EU offered Ukraine a deal, but they also blocked Russia. So the message was clear: We take Ukraine, we privilege Ukraine, but you get blocked. From that point on any aspirations of Russia to be more pro-Western got shattered and this escalated into the conflict we see now. All of this being promoted not by Germany and France, but primarily the USA, which wants to contain Russia and wasn't happy about its power recovering under Putin. They want to secure Europe for the future conflict with China and keep Russia out and down.
The Ukraine policy is nothing but an attack on Russia, geostrategically that's 100 % clear and all that talk about "we don't know why Putin got mad", even in a debate of British "scientists" or better opinion makers is beyond ridiculous. Either they lie or they are incompetent, because this was a drawn out process of reciprocal alienation in which it had to became clear for Russia that they are unwanted and Ukraine got weaponised against it, by this Selenski regime and US and regional oligarchic influences behind it. Its such a tragedy that France and Germany got dragged into this dirty game as well and now all play the propaganda game as if there was nothing happening in Ukraine which could have ever provoked a Russian attack. All the red lins crossed, all the promises broken, the perspective of things getting worse for Russia and nobody caring about their victims in the war, like the regular deaths in Donbas and the attacks on these territories.

Russia tried and was ready to compromise a lot, but it got the clear message from the US, that they want it out or on its knees as a vassal. Just another great piece of US policy, which led to this mess, just like in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lybia, Yemen, etc., etc.

Totally unnecessary. There could have been a free and prosperous neutral Ukraine, but that was just ruined by the wrong policy. And now any peace being prevented by supporting one warmonger against another, with Selenski being even less for a compromise and more confrontational all the time, all these years. He refused any reasonable offer, really any, and never implemented Minsk II agreement, he showed no intention to even negotiate about Donbas, but approached it with "we are Ukraine, we take it by force, we don't talk to terrorists" nonsense. That's just a recipe for war and escalation, and doing so as if Russia acts like it does out of the blue is pure hypocrisy.

Northener · Mar 9, 2022

Riverman said:
The point is Russia tried and got blocked. Same with the EU treaty which caused the escalation 2014. NATO said they would allow Ukraine to join and the EU offered Ukraine a deal, but they also blocked Russia. So the message was clear: We take Ukraine, we privilege Ukraine, but you get blocked. From that point on any aspirations of Russia to be more pro-Western got shattered and this escalated into the conflict we see now. All of this being promoted not by Germany and France, but primarily the USA, which wants to contain Russia and wasn't happy about its power recovering under Putin. They want to secure Europe for the future conflict with China and keep Russia out and down.
The Ukraine policy is nothing but an attack on Russia, geostrategically that's 100 % clear and all that talk about "we don't know why Putin got mad", even in a debate of British "scientists" or better opinion makers is beyond ridiculous. Either they lie or they are incompetent, because this was a drawn out process of reciprocal alienation in which it had to became clear for Russia that they are unwanted and Ukraine got weaponised against it, by this Selenski regime and US and regional oligarchic influences behind it. Its such a tragedy that France and Germany got dragged into this dirty game as well and now all play the propaganda game as if there was nothing happening in Ukraine which could have ever provoked a Russian attack. All the red lins crossed, all the promises broken, the perspective of things getting worse for Russia and nobody caring about their victims in the war, like the regular deaths in Donbas and the attacks on these territories.

Russia tried and was ready to compromise a lot, but it got the clear message from the US, that they want it out or on its knees as a vassal. Just another great piece of US policy, which led to this mess, just like in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lybia, Yemen, etc., etc.

Totally unnecessary. There could have been a free and prosperous neutral Ukraine, but that was just ruined by the wrong policy. And now any peace being prevented by supporting one warmonger against another, with Selenski being even less for a compromise and more confrontational all the time, all these years. He refused any reasonable offer, really any, and never implemented Minsk II agreement, he showed no intention to even negotiate about Donbas, but approached it with "we are Ukraine, we take it by force, we don't talk to terrorists" nonsense. That's just a recipe for war and escalation, and doing so as if Russia acts like it does out of the blue is pure hypocrisy.

Point is that NATO membership is obviously more attractive....for many countries. Russia acts like a wounded bear and can only beat wildly, that's a weakness Riverman. Do you wonder why only an ex ministers of foreign affairs of Austria, an ex Bundeskanzler and a bunch of extreme right is attracted to Putin? The odeur of authoritarian rule and position.....nothing more nothing less. What else attractive has Putin to offer?????

Riverman · Mar 9, 2022

Northener said:
Point is that NATO membership is obviously more attractive....for many countries. Russia acts like a wounded bear and can only beat wildly, that's a weakness Riverman. Do you wonder why only an ex ministers of foreign affairs of Austria, an ex Bundeskanzler and a bunch of extreme right is attracted to Putin? The odeur of authoritarian rule and position.....nothing more nothing less. What else attractive has Putin to offer?????

Look, you always keep describing what happens in the West as well as if its special about Russia. No its not, just like the oligarchs in the East vs., how the Western media call them, "philanthropists" in the West.

Where was ex-chancellor Kurz going? Its nothing special about Russia in this regard, most ex-politicians end in various supervisory boards both in the West and Russia. There is no difference about it, they get caught and corrupted left and right, West and East. This is a major problem for our whole political landscape, and its as bad in the West as it is in the East, sometimes even worse, because the non-Western politicians are able to care for their own well-being and therefore can also make their own decisions, whereas the majority of Western politicians depends on networks which have demands and therefore determine their political agenda.

Putin has to offer a lot, you see what Russia did vs. what the USA did. He brought order into chaos and cracked the Islamists down, whereas the USA only spreads disorder and Islamism. Just as an example for that the actual outcome matters.

If its about European politicians, we're talking about a counterweight to the US-UK influence on Europe, the influence of Washington/New York and London/City of London on the course of things. We are dependent enough from the US already, all Europeans are, we don't need a crippled and destroyed Russia, and even less a 3rd World War fought in Europe. But that doesn't bother the US strategists, they only want to keep the control over the continent and spread all their nonsense from over the Atlantic, while bringing Russia down on its knees. Like how long does it need these days from any crap of cancel culture to come from America to Europe? Three weeks?
Or ideas about how our markets and social programs should be shaped, what goals the EU should have, which "values". There is no European interest in making the US influence even stronger than it already is, especially not with "the blob", like Mearsheimer called it being in charge of foreign policy again.

Vallicanus · Mar 9, 2022

Riverman said:
Look, you always keep describing what happens in the West as well as if its special about Russia. No its not, just like the oligarchs in the East vs., how the Western media call them, "philanthropists" in the West.

Where was ex-chancellor Kurz going? Its nothing special about Russia in this regard, most ex-politicians end in various supervisory boards both in the West and Russia. There is no difference about it, they get caught and corrupted left and right, West and East. This is a major problem for our whole political landscape, and its as bad in the West as it is in the East, sometimes even worse, because the non-Western politicians are able to care for their own well-being and therefore can also make their own decisions, whereas the majority of Western politicians depends on networks which have demands and therefore determine their political agenda.

Putin has to offer a lot, you see what Russia did vs. what the USA did. He brought order into chaos and cracked the Islamists down, whereas the USA only spreads disorder and Islamism. Just as an example for that the actual outcome matters.

If its about European politicians, we're talking about a counterweight to the US-UK influence on Europe, the influence of Washington/New York and London/City of London on the course of things. We are dependent enough from the US already, all Europeans are, we don't need a crippled and destroyed Russia, and even less a 3rd World War fought in Europe. But that doesn't bother the US strategists, they only want to keep the control over the continent and spread all their nonsense from over the Atlantic, while bringing Russia down on its knees. Like how long does it need these days from any crap of cancel culture to come from America to Europe? Three weeks?
Or ideas about how our markets and social programs should be shaped, what goals the EU should have, which "values". There is no European interest in making the US influence even stronger than it already is, especially not with "the blob", like Mearsheimer called it being in charge of foreign policy again.

You are obsessed,really you are.

How would a Europe dominated by Russia, a gas station with nukes, be any better than Europe under U.S. influence.

Vallicanus · Mar 9, 2022

Europe has been found out.

It's been an historical busted flush since 1945 and dependent on the U.S. and Russian spheres of influence.

Europeans couldn't even handle the raids of Barbary Pirates from North Africa right into the early 19th century.

It took the new U.S. navy to end the menace (From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli").

This opened the way for France to occupy Algeria and Tunisia from 1830 onwards.

Riverman · Mar 9, 2022

Vallicanus said:
You are obsessed,really you are.

How would a Europe dominated by Russia, a gas station with nukes, be any better than Europe under U.S. influence.

In some respects market economy and capitalism are right, for the consumer, in this case for the European countries, its better to have two suppliers, even if both are bad, than just one. You understand that? I'm not talking about me wanting Europe being truly dominated by Russia, but I don't want it to be dominated by the current US system either.
There was and there is absolutely no threat from Russia for Europe, unless if the US constantly provokes it. They should have stayed out of Georgia and Ukraine, as they should have stayed out of Iraq, Syria and Lybia. The US interventions only caused troubles from destruction, death, Islamism, prizes, economy and refugees with migration problems in Europe. The US is shattering things, the Europeans and the rest of the world get the problems. That's the issue, not me wanting Russia to be the hegemon in Europe, but being there as a supplier and partner. And they were peaceful partners, for decades now, until the US thought its a good idea to push the agenda and spread propaganda, unrest, anti-Russian regimes and false promises to Russias neighbourhood!
There was no reason for doing that, other than the US hegemons willingness to put everything and everyone down and on his knees around the world, no matter the costs. This was a direct attack on Russia, after having made clear to them that they won't get anything from the West, no NATO no EU special relationship, but its core interests hurt and the neighbouring countries weaponised.

This was a confrontational US policy and Europe didn't need that crap. The Ukrainians might have thought its great at first, but now, even if they win this war, someway, was it worth it? They could have just stayed a neutral state, with special relations to the EU and Russia the same time, in an intermediate position, respecting Russian interests but otherwise developing themselves. The US and the regional Ukrainian oligarchs interventions prevented that from happening, instead they wanted a confrontation, they wanted to encircle Russia and weaponise its neighbours. That's the problem and its not about me saying that Russia is generally better in every respect than the US, absolutely not. But talking about gas, they got the better quality natural gas to a solid price. The alternatives are ecologically and economically a catastrophy and we Europeans need it the next decades. So again, just dependence from and money for the US and its Near Eastern partners. Why should any sane European prefer that? The only reason was that the Ukraine got confrontational and this could have caused supply problems, but for that we got Nordstream.
Of course, the Americans never wanted Nordstream and they wanted to shut it down for many years. Now they have even more pressure to exert on the "sovereign" nations of Europe. They already threatened and blackmailed German, Austrian and other companies before. The Russian - Ukrainian conflict is just another pretext for what the US strategists wanted anyway: Contain or even destroy Russia, make Europe even more dependent from the USA. That's what this is about.

Vallicanus · Mar 9, 2022

Riverman said:
In some respects market economy and capitalism are right, for the consumer, in this case for the European countries, its better to have two suppliers, even if both are bad, than just one. You understand that? I'm not talking about me wanting Europe being truly dominated by Russia, but I don't want it to be dominated by the current US system either.
There was and there is absolutely no threat from Russia for Europe, unless if the US constantly provokes it. They should have stayed out of Georgia and Ukraine, as they should have stayed out of Iraq, Syria and Lybia. The US interventions only caused troubles from destruction, death, Islamism, prizes, economy and refugees with migration problems in Europe. The US is shattering things, the Europeans and the rest of the world get the problems. That's the issue, not me wanting Russia to be the hegemon in Europe, but being there as a supplier and partner. And they were peaceful partners, for decades now, until the US thought its a good idea to push the agenda and spread propaganda, unrest, anti-Russian regimes and false promises to Russias neighbourhood!
There was no reason for doing that, other than the US hegemons willingness to put everything and everyone down and on his knees around the world, no matter the costs. This was a direct attack on Russia, after having made clear to them that they won't get anything from the West, no NATO no EU special relationship, but its core interests hurt and the neighbouring countries weaponised.

This was a confrontational US policy and Europe didn't need that crap. The Ukrainians might have thought its great at first, but now, even if they win this war, someway, was it worth it? They could have just stayed a neutral state, with special relations to the EU and Russia the same time, in an intermediate position, respecting Russian interests but otherwise developing themselves. The US and the regional Ukrainian oligarchs interventions prevented that from happening, instead they wanted a confrontation, they wanted to encircle Russia and weaponise its neighbours. That's the problem and its not about me saying that Russia is generally better in every respect than the US, absolutely not. But talking about gas, they got the better quality natural gas to a solid price. The alternatives are ecologically and economically a catastrophy and we Europeans need it the next decades. So again, just dependence from and money for the US and its Near Eastern partners. Why should any sane European prefer that? The only reason was that the Ukraine got confrontational and this could have caused supply problems, but for that we got Nordstream.
Of course, the Americans never wanted Nordstream and they wanted to shut it down for many years. Now they have even more pressure to exert on the "sovereign" nations of Europe. They already threatened and blackmailed German, Austrian and other companies before. The Russian - Ukrainian conflict is just another pretext for what the US strategists wanted anyway: Contain or even destroy Russia, make Europe even more dependent from the USA. That's what this is about.

If American troops left Europe, Europe, a militarily insignificant section of the planet, would soon be swearing allegiance to the Kremlin, learning Russian and sighing over coffee and croissants.

Riverman · Mar 9, 2022

Vallicanus said:
If American troops left Europe, Europe, militarily insignificant, would be swearing allegiance to the Kremlin and learning Russian.

Russia is at currently much too weak to even think about that. The only thing they can do is to use WMD, especially their nuclear missiles. Of course, UK is now out of the EU and only France has nuclear weapons, Germany does not. That lack of German nuclear weapons is the only or at least primary reason why, in the current situation, Germany needs US support, being under the nuclear shield. That's all. This is not the Warshaw Pact, its not even the Soviet Union, its Russia on its own. They can't threaten Europe other than with nuclear missiles, it would be a way too big lunch for them to swallow. They want European partners to keep their independence from both the USA and China, that's what the Russians want. And they have their own sort of "Monroe doctrine" for their direct ex-Soviet neighbourhood. That are the two things Russia wants, nothing more, nothing less.

This might have change in decades from now, while being still unlikely, but what you are saying is completely out of question as of now. The only thing the USA did is to push Russia into Chinas arms, that's what they did.

Northener · Mar 9, 2022

Riverman said:
Putin has to offer a lot, you see what Russia did vs. what the USA did. He brought order into chaos and cracked the Islamists down, whereas the USA only spreads disorder and Islamism. Just as an example for that the actual outcome matters.

That's exactly were you and I sharply disagree: 'order into chaos', yes in Grozny he did, he did in Syria etc. It's maintaining order by trampling others. The whole idea of strategic nuclear weapons as use in war. That's way beyond a humanistic kind of thinking.

So what about order when the result is trampling of people. No thanks....

Ordnung muss sein und Befehl ist Befehl huhuh in my mind the heels are already clicking together.....

:vomitting:

Riverman · Mar 9, 2022

Northener said:
That's exactly were you and I sharply disagree: 'order into chaos', yes in Grozny he did, he did in Syria etc. It's maintaining order by trampling others. The whole idea of strategic nuclear weapons as use in war. That's way beyond a humanistic kind of thinking.

So what about order when the result is trampling of people. No thanks....

Ordnung muss sein und Befehl ist Befehl huhuh in my mind the heels are already clicking together.....

You miss the key point, that this kind of "intervention" became necessary to stop Islamist barbarians from taking over and committing a genocide on the Syrian-Iraqi Alevites, Christians, Shia muslims, Kurds, Yazidis, atheists etc., etc. They went on killing and torturing as they liked, with the support of the Gulf states, Turkey, Israel and of course the USA.
That was the situation these states were in, before the Russians intervened and had to use brutal force to bring things back to something more acceptable. Probably it won't have been enough, because guess what, if the Russians lose it now completely, the war in Syria will escalate once more too and bring the Sunni Islamists back into offensive. We already see signs of that.

So what you are suggesting is that the Russians caused this mess: No they don't, it was the USA and its allies which caused that catastrophy, the Russians just played the firefighters when things went completely out of control.

They didn't trample "on people" because they loved it, they had to use force to fight these genocidal and most brutal Islamists back. That's a very basic and fundamental difference. This is not order as a an end in itself, its the better alternative, given the options on the ground.

Did you care to watch what the IS did to prisoners? You think that was better or more humane? More free or whatever? That was the alternative in Syria and the Russians prevented it from spreading, while the US and its allies directly and indirectly supplied and assisted them, up to the point of the general public paying attention to what guys they were.

This is even more absurd if considering that the USA invaded Iraq, a staunch enemy of this Islamists, with the excuse of fighting Islamist terror! They spread it themselves in Syria, while they have lied about Iraq! In comparison, Russia did much better and everything right, considering the given circumstances. The USA gave up on regime change themselves, now they support terrorists and "revolutions" from outside, with the effects we know from Syria, Libya, Georgia and now Ukraine. Great job.
Talking about Chechnya: They were even left alone, they could do what they wanted, but they began to infiltrate other Caucasian republics and used terrorism in main Russia itself. The main support and ideological infiltration came from Saudi Arabia, with indirect US support. Chechnya was an ugly war too, but that was the time Russia was really pushed to it, and began to realise, that even if they want, they can't just watch. Because things get worse, they don't even stop at their republic's border.

We got all those surveillance in the West, with the poor excuse of "fighting Islamist terror" initially, and in reality the US is supporting Islamists whenever it suits them and cooperates with the main state sponsor for these movements, Saudi Arabia.

The USA have the least right to point fingers on Russia, the least!

Vallicanus · Mar 9, 2022

Riverman said:
Russia is at currently much too weak to even think about that. The only thing they can do is to use WMD, especially their nuclear missiles. Of course, UK is now out of the EU and only France has nuclear weapons, Germany does not. That lack of German nuclear weapons is the only or at least primary reason why, in the current situation, Germany needs US support, being under the nuclear shield. That's all. This is not the Warshaw Pact, its not even the Soviet Union, its Russia on its own. They can't threaten Europe other than with nuclear missiles, it would be a way too big lunch for them to swallow. They want European partners to keep their independence from both the USA and China, that's what the Russians want. And they have their own sort of "Monroe doctrine" for their direct ex-Soviet neighbourhood. That are the two things Russia wants, nothing more, nothing less.

This might have change in decades from now, while being still unlikely, but what you are saying is completely out of question as of now. The only thing the USA did is to push Russia into Chinas arms, that's what they did.

What unalloyed tosh.
Are you a Kremlin apologist?

They can only threaten Europe with nuclear weapons, you wrote?

Europe can sleep soundly in its bed.

bicicleur 2 · Mar 9, 2022

Vallicanus said:
Europe has been found out.

It's been an historical busted flush since 1945 and dependent on the U.S. and Russian spheres of influence.

Europeans couldn't even handle the raids of Barbary Pirates from North Africa right into the early 19th century.

It took the new U.S. navy to end the menace (From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli").

This opened the way for France to occupy Algeria and Tunisia from 1830 onwards.

I don't know about the 19th cent pirates, but it's sufficient to mention the Balkan conflict some 40 years ago, which was in Europe and couldn't be handled by Europe.

Politics Will Russia Attack Ukraine?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Elite member

Elite member

Regular Member

Elite member

Regular Member

Elite member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Elite member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member