Are we on the brink of World War III?

Hitler knew he would be hung if he were captured alive.
I didn't say Putin should be encircled in his bunker with the nuke knob.
I don't understand how you come to this idea. The war is in Ukraine and he is safe in Moscow or some secret location.

China and others are watching very closely how this war will unfold.

That's not the point imo. You see his reaction (of AH) on misinformation, on defeat. That kind of "personality types" acts very tricky with regard to humiliation or (possible) defeat. See also the reaction of Putin on the FSB (mis) information. The parallels are very obvious....
 
Well if you think he's bad just imagine the guy on the other red throne...this can get very bad...I know the west has it's share of problems but I still like being able to express myself without fear... we may be going deeper in the woods if the rumors I hear are true hug your loved ones...
 
Well if you think he's bad just imagine the guy on the other red throne...this can get very bad...I know the west has it's share of problems but I still like being able to express myself without fear... we may be going deeper in the woods if the rumors I hear are true hug your loved ones...

One of my old teachers Hans van Koningsbrugge, stated this yesterday in the newspaper (google translate):

Something important has happened that barely makes the press. Namely the arrest of Sergei Beseda. That is the head of the foreign affairs department of the FSB, the man who planned the operation in Ukraine. That Mr. Beseda is probably responsible for Putin's ideas that the Ukrainian regime would collapse like this. Not only he has been arrested, it seems, but also his right-hand man.


I looked up to that. Because it indicates that the Kremlin is cracking and looking for those responsible for what happened. It also shows that the story Putin is telling is wrong about how the operation is going so well and as expected.

Putin's Personal War

You can also see that it is a personal war. Putin's personal war. He thought it would be a piece of cake, because he got those reports. It could also explain why the Russians went into the first battle with fairly light troops. That they thought they would be received with flowers and brass bands. During the Maidan revolution in Ukraine in 2014, Beseda also made the mistake of estimating that the then president of Ukraine Yanukovych would make it. He was able to correct that mistake. Apparently not this one.


Apparently it is a charge of corruption. That's the usual. Those bigwigs, of course, all have tons of butter on their heads and seem to be in the closet. The highest boss chooses the moment they fall out. Apparently it is now.


Expansive Tsars
I also heard something fascinating about Putin's office. He has four portraits hanging there. From Peter the Great and Catherine the Great. From Alexander I, who defeated Napoleon, and from Nicholas I, the man of the Crimean War. All four expansive tsars. That is a political program, you know, what hangs there.
 
Every time I hear someone mention WWIII and want to say that from a historian's perspective there has already been five world wars, starting with the Seven Years' War (1756-1763), which was the first World War. World War IV was the Cold War (including the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iranian Revolution, the Nicaraguan Revolution, and the Cuban crisis, among others), and World War V was the War on Terror (including Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria and the terrorist attacks in Western countries since 9/11).

But to answer your question, even if NATO declares war on Russia, that would not constitute a world war properly speaking unless at least one other major country decides to side with Russia. Otherwise it's just a war against Putin's Russia. A world war always involve two 'teams" fighting with each others on a global scale. In the Seven Years' War it was Britain, Portugal, Hanover, Prussia on one side against France, Austria, Saxony, Sweden, Spain and the Mughal Empire on the other, with Russia changing side mid-conflict. In 1914-18 it was the Entente Powers against the Central Powers. In 1939-45 it was the Allied vs the Axis. In the Cold War it was NATO and the capitalist countries vs the Communist bloc...


As soon as there would start a war with Russia, it will at least spill over to the Middle East, with Syria-Iraq-Iran against Israel. That's the first step, and rather sooner than later, China will most likely step in, especially if Russia rather losing, but still fighting and causing massive damage to the NATO forces, which they would. So in no time we would be in a full scale World War, potentially with ABC weapons used on a grande scale.

Does any sane person wants this?

And saying that Putin started this war because the Americans were so peace loving and weak, "didn't do enough", is like pure cynicism. Russia started this war only because the Americans did interfere too much, because they backed up and pushed the Selenski regime towards its direct, open confrontation with Russia. Selenski started the purge, by arresting close friends of Putin, a large fraction of pro-Russian activists being suppressed and persecuted, media, especially TV stations closed and the mass media phased in a radical anti-Russian direction.
While that happened internally, the USA armed the Ukraine up, prepared them for their war to take Donbas back by force and fight off any Russian attack. That way, they created a time window for the Russians to act, before Ukraine gets too strong, probably destroys their Donbas allies or becoming even part of NATO, coming under a nuclear shield.
That pressure, because of the internal political purge and the external military threat, cause the Russian invasion now.
If the policy of Trump would have been prolonged, there would be no such war, especially not in this way. Its simple as that. The American interference, the aggressive push and back up for the Ukrainians and their interference, caused this war. They did too much already, the Biden administration was too aggressive, while at the same time making false promises to the Ukrainians.
So the Ukrainians being the victims of two forces: The Americans pushing them, with false promises, and the Russians.
 
If you haven't watched Sarajevo 2014 movie it's practically the same thing war hungry punks in the inner circle did a similar thing to goad get their leader to start conflict...I forget if they were Austrian Prussian or German it's been a while I should rewatch...
 
If you haven't watched Sarajevo 2014 movie it's practically the same thing war hungry punks in the inner circle did a similar thing to goad get their leader to start conflict...I forget if they were Austrian Prussian or German it's been a while I should rewatch...


And soon in the process, on all sides, democratic or not, the generals took over from the politicians and then there was no diplomatic or peaceful political solution any more. If Russia wouldn't have backed up Serbia to deny the Austrian demands, which simply was about persecuting the murderers and those involved in the kiling of the heir to the throne, Serbia would have followed, most likely. Or it would have remained a very regional conflict.
Similar situation here: Russian demands, Ukrainians don't confront Russia aggressively. Then comes uncle Biden from the USA and says he arms and backs them up. They start to get stiff and refuse any diplomatic solution with Russia. Russia starts the war...

Or on a similar level: By that time, the big move was the general mobilisation of the army. Once Russia started to mobilise, which needed a lot of time, Germany had to start a preventive attack, before the Russian forces being fully prepared. Everybody knew this: As soon as the Russians start to mobilise, this means war. That's why Wilhelm from Germany wrote to his close relative Nikolaus in Russia: "Dear Niki, please stop this..." (analogously) Did he stop? No. And not just because Nikolaus wanted the war, but becaue the generals have already taken over.
We have in every village, in every single village, lists of those fallen in World War I. Every small village has dozens of victims, whole families erradicated, and for what? And of course, World War I caused, with its losses and treaties, to a large degree World War II.

And if you think about it, how two relatives (Wilhelm and Nikolaus), friends with each other, and they still tried to prevent it. Yet there came a point of no return, where it became impossible to stop the machine.

You oftentimes don't know when this point being reached, when you can't say "Stop" anymore. It happenend in Ukraine, as bad as it is, just like that. That's bad, but it would be much worse if it escalates to the next level and people should start to think, to use their brain, how far they want to go for this nonsense. For the irrational demands on both sides, which are unwilling to make a reasonable compromise.
They must be brougth to compromise, both sides, that's it. No more escalation to the next level.
We had this twice, for better reasons than there are now, for much better reasons. But still not good enough. And this time, its absolutely ridiculous. Selenski wants to reconquer territories and people for his state, which don't want to belong to it. Wants to suppress or expel them. That and the NATO membership are the two main reasons for this war. Its completely absurd to even think about risking, or even starting, World War III for this idiocy.
 
All I'll say is we need to keep communications open with Putin always find a way to compromise and don't seek revenge we need to cool off time will heal all wounds...just stop picking at them :really:
 
All I'll say is we need to keep communications open with Putin always find a way to compromise and don't seek revenge we need to cool off time will heal all wounds...just stop picking at them :really:

Putin is 69, he won't be there forever anyway. Does one old bloke (Biden) want to start nuclear war to make a regime change and replace another guy somewhat younger? What's the matter? There is just absolutely no reason for this escalation. There was none in Ukraine, but they did it, Selenski and Biden, against all the warnings from serious, renowned analysts. Now what?

That's the point: It was a mistake and the further they go, the worse it becomes.
 
That's not the point imo. You see his reaction (of AH) on misinformation, on defeat. That kind of "personality types" acts very tricky with regard to humiliation or (possible) defeat. See also the reaction of Putin on the FSB (mis) information. The parallels are very obvious....

FYI : Hitler didn't have nuclear, but he had chemicals weapons of mass destruction, and he didn't use them, even when the Russians entered Berlin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

You better inform yourself instead of basing a scenario on a movie.

Being nice to these kind of dictators to save the peace tomorrow might mean you loose the lasting peace for the years to come.
 
FYI : Hitler didn't have nuclear, but he had chemicals weapons of mass destruction, and he didn't use them, even when the Russians entered Berlin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

You better inform yourself instead of basing a scenario on a movie.

Being nice to these kind of dictators to save the peace tomorrow might mean you loose the lasting peace for the years to come.

That's true, Germany had the biggest and most effective chemical arsenal in the world. While Hitler as far as I know didn't propose using it, Churchill said he would like to use it. If London would have been conquered by the Germans, he might have used it, I would actually say so. Just like the USA did use the nuclear bomb, even when they didn't had to, because it was a proof of concept to the world and they could test it on two cities with different terrain.

Would you bet your life and family for making the Selenski regime getting back Donbas and Crimea, which they didn't even had before this war started? Ask yourself what this is about and how it should go.
 
FYI : Hitler didn't have nuclear, but he had chemicals weapons of mass destruction, and he didn't use them, even when the Russians entered Berlin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

You better inform yourself instead of basing a scenario on a movie.

Being nice to these kind of dictators to save the peace tomorrow might mean you loose the lasting peace for the years to come.

My posting was aimed at your statement that Putin must be humiliated. My statement is that humiliating dictators with nukes (how right as such) is high risk. That is very differentiated from being nice to them (that's not my plea).

And of course I know that Hitler had no nukes (I'm a historian so such basic facts ;) And the chemical weapons is due to AH's own experiences in WW1. The Allies had a lot of that stuff (more than the NAZIS) that could also be a factor. And by the way as if Zyklon B is not chemical....
 
Last edited:
And this quote of today could have been form AH :

 
Very good analysis (the text below the video is the same what the lector in the video says):


^^^ WHY RUSSIA IS INVADING UKRAINE ??? :


Throughout the past few months there has been almost constant news and coverage in the west about Russia's imminent plans to invade Ukraine. On the morning of February the 24th these fears proved to be well founded. Russia's president Vladimir Putin effectively declared war on Ukraine and authorized the Russian military to invade the country. Explosions were quickly reported afterwards across the country and immediately prior to this declaration, the Russian army had amassed around 200,000 soldiers along with their tanks, artillery, equipment and field hospitals across their border and many others inside of Belarus along their border with Ukraine. For comparison, this is nearly the same size as the entire Ukrainian military at about the same number of troops sent by the United States when invading Iraq in 2003, this is certainly large enough to be an effective invasion force. Even further, the Russian government has recognized the independence of the two breakaway states inside of Ukraine, Donetsk and Luhansk, and ordered Russian troops inside of both. When factoring in the Russian military presence already stationed in Crimea, you can quickly begin seeing that the Russians have Ukraine almost entirely surrounded, and now that war has broken out it has the potential to unleash the most serious conflict seen in Europe since the Second World War and the biggest question on everybody's mind this entire time has been this: what exactly does Vladimir Putin and Russia want with Ukraine? And the answer is... of course it's complicated.


The origins of what Putin wants today are rooted in what happened more than three decades ago back in the early 1990s when the Soviet Union first collapsed. For centuries before this event whether as part of the Soviet Union or the Russian Empire the modern countries we know of today as Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and others had all been a part of the same country, and their people had largely moved between all of them across generations. These places are all deeply and intimately connected by their shared history and for decades that history involves being widely recognized as one of the world's most dominant and formidable global superpowers, but all of that changed in late 1991 when suddenly the sweeping united empire that had existed in some form or another for centuries collapsed and left in its place 15 newly independent republics. Today the largest of them, Russia, has only half of the population that the former united Soviet Union had and she possesses an economy that's only moderately larger than Spain's, a country with only a third of the population that ceased being a great power back in the 18th century. At the same time the massive amounts of territories that were once dominated from the central government in Moscow have been shrinking almost continuously ever since. During the Cold War there were two rival competing military alliances on the European continent: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO in the west and the Warsaw Pact in the east. Moscow didn't outright rule the countries of the Warsaw Pact but they were effectively locked into Moscow's orbit as thralls or puppet states, from Moscow's perspective these states provided a massive buffer against any potential military incursion from their primary Cold War rivals to the west in NATO. You see from The Netherlands in the west to the Ural mountains in the east this whole part of Europe is dominated by a geographic feature called the North European Plain. Almost entirely flat, the plain is shaped like a funnel with a very narrow width in Northern Germany but with a mouth that opens up increasingly wider as it approaches the Ural mountains. As the open plain gets wider across the east it becomes increasingly difficult to defend across its entire length and as a result from the perspective of any regime based in Moscow regardless of the time period and regardless of the ideology it is imperative to expand control westwards across as much of this open plain as possible in order to narrow the gap that they need to defend in the event of a conflict with the west. During the Cold War the control of this plain by a regime in Moscow was at its greatest historical extent and was exerted either outright or by proxy from the Urals all the way through East Germany, and the entire wider section of the funnel was firmly controlled by Moscow with Austria and Finland remaining neutral and Yugoslavia a non-aligned communist state. The only fronts that Moscow at the time had to truly worry about against NATO were across the Sudeten Mountains, the Black Sea and a narrow line across the North European Plain in Central Germany, all easily defensible positions. Any invasion of the Soviet world from the west across these geographic frontiers would have been incredibly difficult but in the 30 years since 1991 the situation has changed dramatically against Moscow's favor. Today, the former Warsaw Pact territories of East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria are all a part of NATO while the former Soviet republics themselves of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia all are as well. This reality has pushed the NATO front lines significantly further to the east across the wider section of the North European Plain and have separated Russian territory between the mainland and the Kaliningrad exclave across what's known as the Suwalki gap. If you're sitting in the Kremlin in Moscow and you still believe that NATO is a hostile military alliance or could become one in the future, then this situation understandably looks pretty grim but it's not totally lost yet. In the years following the breakup of the Soviet Union many of the newly independent republics established and joined their own military alliance called the Collective Security Treaty Organization or CSTO which in Europe consists of Russia, Belarus and Armenia but not Ukraine, which has remained a sort of neutral zone between NATO in the west and the CSTO in the east. And now within this lens you can easily see why Ukraine is currently and always will be a geographic core interest to Moscow. If Ukraine is within Moscow's orbit then it pushes the CSTO's and Moscow's defensive lines to the Carpathian Mountains in the southwest and it narrows their exposure across the North European Plain to only the eastern border of Poland. And while the Baltic states do lie across the plain as well, CSTO forces could easily encircle them by rapidly advancing across the narrow Suwalki gap between Kaliningrad and Belarus and cut them off from the rest of NATO meaning that they aren't as grave of a geographical threat. Conversely, however, if Ukraine became a NATO member state it would surge the NATO front lines far beyond the Carpathian mountains and far across the wider section of the North European Plain and place the new defensible front line across nearly 2,300 kilometers of open hard-to-defend flat land, the easternmost section of which would only be a little more than 300 kilometers away from Volgograd which, if taken, would shut down the entire Volga river and cut off Russia's valuable oil and gas resources coming up from around the Caspian Sea from the rest of the country as nearly happened during the Second World War back when the city was better known as Stalingrad. Even further, Belarus a friendly and loyal CSTO state that is often considered a mere extension of Moscow itself would suddenly become an indefensible salient protruding deep into the NATO front lines surrounded entirely by NATO territory on three flanks. Thus Ukraine's outright control by Moscow or at least neutrality is essential to the defense of the CSTO and Russia, if you believe that NATO is a hostile aggressor or could become one in the future.


But all of this is really only the beginning of what Russia and Putin want from Ukraine. The biggest thing they want of all is energy. While their overall economy is little larger than Spain's, Russia remains a global superpower through the lens of energy resources and it's specifically oil and gas that is the most critical component to understand about Russia's worldwide ambitions. Across multiple vast oil fields, Russia is the world's second largest producer of oil ahead of even Saudi Arabia while at the same time Russia also possesses the world's largest proven reserves of natural gas, largely across Siberia which has enabled Russia to become the world's leading exporter of natural gas. The revenues gained from the sale of all these oil and gas exports are the literal foundation for the modern Russian state and Russian power, because they provide as much as 50% of the entire Russian government's budget and represent about 30% of Russia's entire GDP. Russia has used the vast money earned from selling oil and gas abroad to fund their military, pay off debts, save cash and finance its own restoration as a global great power. Russia is therefore effectively a petro-state just like Saudi Arabia or Iran and is the only petrol state located in Europe, at least for now. For you see despite these massive geological blessings they also come with a number of geographical catches from Moscow's perspective. Most of their gas is sold off to the hungry customers in the European Union so much so that 35% of the EU's entire gas supply comes from Russia alone, including Germany, the world's fourth largest economy who imports nearly half of their natural gas from Russia. This flow of gas towards Germany and Europe across this complex system of pipelines provides critical revenues for the Russian government to function and provides critical heat for European cities during the winter, and so both sides heavily rely upon the other here. Any disruption in this trade relationship would be disastrous from Moscow's perspective and Ukraine is the most likely place for such a disruption to happen in the future. Back during the Soviet times when Russia and Ukraine were both one country, pipelines were built across Ukraine almost like a bridge that transported gas directly from the Siberian sources to the customers in Europe. But then all of a sudden after the USSR's collapse, Ukraine was an independent country who's demanding tariffs to the tune of billions of dollars a year from Russia in order to continue using their country as a gas bridge to Europe and Russia had no other choice but to agree, because the pipeline infrastructure anywhere else didn't yet exist. As late as 2005, 80% of Russia's gas exports heading to Europe were still flowing across pipelines through Ukraine but in the decades since, Russia has sought to solve this over-reliance on Ukraine by building multiple new pipelines that avoid Ukraine entirely like Yamal?Europe across loyal Belarus, Nord Stream 1 and 2 beneath the Baltic that go directly from Russia to Germany, Moscow's largest single customer, along with South Stream, Blue Stream and TurkStream beneath the Black Sea. By 2024 Russia has plans to completely cease all of their gas exports through Ukraine entirely and the government will save billions of dollars in tariffs as a result, but that is hardly what has been so threatening about Ukraine recently.


Significantly more menacing to the perspective of Moscow was the discovery for the first time in early 2012 that Ukraine's exclusive economic zone within the Black Sea may contain more than 2 trillion cubic meters worth of natural gas largely concentrated around the Crimean peninsula. To make matters even more interesting, further technological advancements in the early 2010s that enabled the successful drilling of natural gas and oil from shale rock unlocked the potential shale gas hot spots for Ukraine around Donetsk and Kharkiv in the east and around the Carpathians in the west. Beginning in 2012 there was suddenly a very real possibility that almost out of nowhere Ukraine had the world's 14th largest reserves of natural gas just behind Australia and Iraq, but as a relatively poor country Ukraine lacked the finances, the technology or the equipment to successfully harvest any of these resources in any large quantities but that all changed when shortly afterwards the Ukrainian government began granting exploration and drilling rights to the likes of Shell and Exxon. It was suddenly possible that within a few years these western companies would enable Ukraine to transform into Europe's second petro-state, which would have not only been a direct and serious competitor to Russia's own gas supply to the European Union and thus at the same time a major threat to the Russian government's budget and GDP, but would have also provided the easy path of eventual Ukrainian admission into the European Union and NATO as well. And this is really in my opinion what this whole situation is truly about. In 2012 at the time when these discoveries were initially made, the man in charge of Ukraine was Viktor Yanukovych, a pro-Russian politician who is keeping Ukraine more politically aligned with the interests of Moscow so long as he was president these discoveries were not directly threatening to Russia. But when suddenly in February 2014 his government was toppled in a pro-EU and pro-western revolution in Kiev, Moscow was very quick to take the opportunity to invade some of Ukraine, seize the Crimean peninsula and annex it in the name of historical claims and protecting ethnic Russians. But by seizing Crimea the Russians also took direct control of two-thirds of Ukraine's coastline and by extension the vast majority of Ukraine's maritime exclusive economic zone and most critically an estimated 80% of Ukraine's potential offshore oil and gas reserves. In addition, billions of dollars worth of drilling equipment and other assets in the peninsula were seized by the Russians all of which completely crippled the Ukrainian government's future potential to challenge Russia's gas supremacy in Europe. To make matters even worse from Ukraine's perspective, the areas of Ukraine that are the most rich in shale gas are located very near to the most major conflict zones encouraged and funded from Moscow with the Donetsk and Luhansk rebellions and the Transnistria breakaway republic in Moldova, which in my view is not a coincidence. As a result, Shell and Exxon both backed out from all of their contracts with the Ukrainian government shortly afterwards leaving Ukraine with no capability to extract the remaining resources themselves and no capability to challenge Russia's occupation of Crimea. From the perspective of Putin and his regime these were all mandatory actions to take in order to curb a western-oriented Ukraine from ever selling major supplies of gas to Europe that would threaten his own regime's primary source of wealth and power. Ukraine had to be dismembered to protect himself and the other oligarchs who are in power, but there's more. Under Putin Russia can't ever give Crimea back to Ukraine because it would surrender the entire exclusive economic zone and all of the gas resources within it back along with the strategic port city of Sevastopol, one of the very few year-round ice-free ports that the Russian navy can use and needs to operate throughout the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. If Crimea was ever returned to Ukraine and Ukraine joined NATO they would regain their ability to threaten the Russian government's primary source of revenue and the Russian navy's most geostrategically valuable port would be lost forever, but Ukraine has some pressure that it can and has been applying itself. Naturally speaking the geography of Crimea is that it's almost an island only loosely connected to the rest of Europe and covered by dry and arid Steppes and some salty marshes with very little fresh water for people or agriculture. Prior to the Russian invasion and annexation the vast majority of Crimea's fresh water supply like 85% of it, came down into the peninsula from a canal built during the Soviet era that diverted water from the Dnieper river but after the Russians took it over in 2014 the Ukrainians weren't exactly in the mood to continue sending down the water and they filled up the canal within their remaining borders to the north with cement and blocked the flow of all this water down into the now Russian occupied Crimea. As a result, Crimea has ever since been essentially dying a death from a thousand cuts as it steadily recedes back into the dry and arid Steppe of history while modern climate change is only making everything even worse as 2020 was the driest year ever on record in Crimea since recordkeeping began 150 years ago. As a result, the Russian government is struggling to maintain its hold. The capital city Simferopol's reservoir is today less than 7% full and the city has been having to ration water supplies, even after the Russians built a nearly 4 billion dollar bridge across the Kerch strait to connect the peninsula over to the Russian mainland, shipping in water is difficult and life for the more than 2 million people on the peninsula is getting harder after the annexation, not better. The Russian government is having to spend billions of dollars a year to financially prop up Crimea and it's largely all because of this canal being shut down by the Ukrainians over on the other side and Ukraine is obviously not in any kind of mood to open it back up again. As a result, the current crisis in Ukraine can also be seen through the lens of climate and water conflict and it's one of the biggest reasons why Russia is doing what it's doing now. The current Prime Minister of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy has stated on multiple occasions that the primary goal going forward for the Ukrainian nation is the reclamation of the Crimean peninsula from Russia. Currently, Ukraine has no realistic capability to challenge the overwhelmingly more powerful and capable Russian military but in the future, were Ukraine to join NATO and a murky conflict breaks out between themselves and Russia over Crimea or in the eastern rebel-occupied Donbas where it may be unclear who started it, it's hypothetical that Ukraine could trigger Article 5 of the NATO Treaty which states that "if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the ally attacked". Therefore, in the future the fear of those in power in the Kremlin is that Ukraine will bring in the rest of NATO to fight Russia in taking back Crimea and that is a war that Moscow knows it will lose, not only because of NATO's much more advanced military capabilities but because of Russia's own internal demographic problems. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia's deaths have exceeded her births, well, the nation's fertility rate has been among the lowest in the world and so the country's population has been shrinking almost continuously ever since. But since the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020, the shrinking population problem has only gotten even worse and Russia is currently undergoing its largest peacetime decline in people ever in all of recorded history, even worse than during the 1990s right after the Soviet collapse. Right now Russia has around 25 million men within the country who are of military service age but the government knows that as time continues on that potential pool of manpower is only going to get smaller and smaller therefore it could be reasoned behind the inner walls of the Kremlin that the longer Russia waits to act upon Ukraine, the more difficult it is going to become in the future and so the earlier the better. Now, by occupying Crimea and by maintaining conflicts in the Donbas region of Eastern Ukraine, Russia has so far succeeded in keeping Ukraine out of NATO and by building up troops along the border and hosting joint military exercises in Belarus, Moscow is further able to signal to Ukraine that they are in danger which can panic investors in the Ukrainian government and damage the economy even further and which forces Ukraine to spend even more money on their own military and defense taking away vital cash that they could be using to further develop their own natural gas infrastructure, and of course Russia has been fueling a war inside of Ukraine in the east now for years ever since 2014 that has greatly depleted the Ukrainian government's time, manpower and resources. After being taken over by pro-Russian separatists following Russia's invasion and annexation of Crimea, both Donetsk and Luhansk declared their independence from Ukraine eight years ago and after being supported financially and militarily from Russia have continuously been fighting a war against the Ukrainian government ever since, that has already claimed the lives of more than 14,000 people. For years most of the territory of each has been controlled by the Ukrainian government but just a few days ago, Russia for the first time officially recognized both as fully independent countries separate from Ukraine and deployed their troops into each.


Right now it's still unclear what exactly Putin is ultimately planning for Ukraine, he may only be plotting a limited strike into the country in order to permanently sever both Donetsk and Luhansk from the country as he did with Crimea eight years previously and effectively occupy each. He may also be plotting a further limited strike from Crimea in order to neutralize the block in the canal in order to free up Crimea's struggling water supply. He may be planning to go further though to ensure that this situation never happens again and push Russian territory all the way to at least some of the Dnieper river to simultaneously stabilize Crimea's geographic position by freeing up the water supply, deny even more of Ukraine's coastline and access to natural gas reserves, and set up a stronger potential defensive line against any attack from the west along the Dnieper river's banks. Alternatively, he may also be planning a southern takeover of Ukraine which would simultaneously bring Donetsk and Luhansk into Russia, link up Crimea with the Dnieper river and the canal, block off Ukraine from the rest of the Black Sea and transform the country into a landlocked state permanently removed from any remaining offshore gas deposits, and link up mainland Russian territory with both Crimea and loyal Transnistria in the west. Or he may really be planning an all-out assault to take over the entire country so it's to guarantee that Russia and the CSTO's defensive lines against NATO are pushed further back towards the more narrow opening of the North European Plain between the Carpathian mountains and the Baltic Sea across the border of Poland, and in so doing guaranteeing that Ukraine will never be used against them and that Belarus will never become an indefensible salient. From there, Russian provocations into Moldova are almost a certainty next, another former Soviet state who isn't a member of NATO and conveniently already has a pro-Russian breakaway state that Russia will eventually get around to recognizing as well: Transnistria. It's all a part of Putin's repeatedly stated goal of bringing back the old Soviet and Russian Empire for the 21st century. Now that Putin has chosen to invade it's not entirely clear what's happening as the facts on the ground are rapidly developing but what is clear are Putin's demands, he has demanded that the west agree to three main terms:


1) that Ukraine never be allowed to join the NATO alliance
2) the NATO and the United States withdraw all of their armed forces from Eastern Europe back to the pre-1997 boundaries of NATO ending in Germany, effectively abandoning Poland, the Baltic states and much of the rest of Eastern Europe
3) that NATO and america agree to freeze the NATO alliance as is and rule out any future expansion of new members, and that the alliance will not
hold any military drills in Ukraine, Eastern Europe or in the Caucasus without prior Russian consent


The west and NATO of course will never accept any of these terms and Putin must know this but through the lenses of geographic security, the economics of oil and gas, the changing climate, the shortage of water in Crimea and Russia's own sensitive internal demographic crisis, it's clear to see what Russia's primary concerns are with Ukraine and only time will tell how Russia and Vladimir Putin act upon those concerns. But by analyzing how Putin has acted before during times of crisis we can likely figure out how he'll act again in the future. The recognition of both Donetsk and Luhansk as independent countries and the deployment of Russian troops into both before, launching the full-scale invasion across the entire country next, mirrors a striking uncanny resemblance to exactly what Putin and the Russian government did against Georgia 14 years previously back in 2008. Back then the Russian army invaded the country of Georgia in what would ultimately become the first European war of the 21st century. Two pro-Russian breakaway provinces inside of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, were each recognized by Russia as fully separate and independent countries and then by using the pretext of Georgian occupation of both, Russia deployed troops into both and from there initiated a full-scale land sea and air invasion across the rest of Georgia. Across the 12 days of intense fighting that followed the Russians occupied both Abkhazia and South Ossetia within Georgia, solidified their de facto independence and effectively dismembered the country displacing nearly 200,000 people and causing Georgia to sever all diplomatic relations with Russia. However, it was in the end a decisive victory for Russia and for Vladimir Putin as it kept Georgia from joining NATO, and at a time when NATO and the west were more distracted by the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan there was little international attention, let alone condemnation. It would only be less than six years later when Putin would deploy the exact same kinds of tactics that he used against Georgia against Ukraine in Crimea and the Donbas, and now in 2022 it once again appears that history is repeating itself in Donetsk, Luhansk and Ukraine. Without a doubt the Russian invasion of Georgia is absolutely critical to understanding how Putin's modern military strategy of dismemberment works and in understanding what he might ultimately plan to do with Ukraine.
 
Every time I hear someone mention WWIII and want to say that from a historian's perspective there has already been five world wars, starting with the Seven Years' War (1756-1763), which was the first World War. World War IV was the Cold War (including the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iranian Revolution, the Nicaraguan Revolution, and the Cuban crisis, among others), and World War V was the War on Terror (including Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria and the terrorist attacks in Western countries since 9/11).

But to answer your question, even if NATO declares war on Russia, that would not constitute a world war properly speaking unless at least one other major country decides to side with Russia. Otherwise it's just a war against Putin's Russia. A world war always involve two 'teams" fighting with each others on a global scale. In the Seven Years' War it was Britain, Portugal, Hanover, Prussia on one side against France, Austria, Saxony, Sweden, Spain and the Mughal Empire on the other, with Russia changing side mid-conflict. In 1914-18 it was the Entente Powers against the Central Powers. In 1939-45 it was the Allied vs the Axis. In the Cold War it was NATO and the capitalist countries vs the Communist bloc...

I think that we can say that there were eight world wars:

World War I - years 1602?1663 - also known as the Dutch?Portuguese War
World War II - years 1701-1715 - also known as War of the Spanish Succession
World War III - years 1740-1748 - also known as War of the Austrian Succession
World War IV - years 1756-1763 - also known as Seven Years' War
World War V - years 1798-1815 - also known as Napoleonic Wars
World War VI - years 1914-1918 - also known as the Great War
World War VII - years 1939-1945 - obsolete name: World War II
World War VIII - years 1947-1991 - also known as the Cold War
 
Last edited:
The Kremlin rhetoric has been building up for at least 15 years....

In 2007 Dutch artist Daya Cahen was the only outsider allowed to film extensively inside the summer training camp of Vladimir Putin’s radical and patriotic youth movement Nashi (Ours), known for breaking up anti-Putin demonstrations and using violence against Putin’s opponents.


In this summer camp 10.000 Russian boys and girls are preparing themselves for a heroic future. They spend two weeks in lockdown, while red banners and loudspeakers hanging from the dome tents in the woods tell them what their future should be. They are the chosen ones of Russia; the future managers, politicians and military leaders of the country. The aim of the movement is to make Russia a great and invincible nation. A manifest is teaching them to sacrifice their life for their country, while Putin looks down on them from behind the trees.


At the same time the West is ridiculed and anti-American sentiments are enforced by role-play of ever drunken Americans and Putin’s opponents in prison clothes, portrayed as fascists and placed behind barbed wire. In the film Cahen splits the screen to visually multiply the already looming impression of impending fascism and reveals how a seemingly innocent summer camp can become an important tool for indoctrination and radicalization.


In the present time we can look at the work in a different light and might see how already over a decade ago a generation of young Russians were being carefully prepared to perceive Russia as “the global leader of the 21st Century”. The film provides insight into the forge of the system's leaders and the system itself.

https://dayacahen.com/work/nashi-video
 
Last edited:
Pro-Russian former commander of Donbas separatists says this:

https://rentry.co/2gqat

"Igor Ivanovich Strelkov

THE 24TH DAY OF THE WAR

"Drip! Drip! Drip!" - Like water from a leaky hanging basin, drop by drop the days are gone. Along with priceless time, lives and resources go nowhere. On the front there are local battles, except in Donbass, where the command wastes the last forces of the bleeding Donetsk and Luhansk infantry, repeatedly storming the Ukraine Army strongholds in Avdiivka and Marinka.

And now the systematic (after several days of street fighting) retreat of the enemy from Rubizhne to Severodonetsk becomes the only "major victory" in two days. Even the ultra-optimistic propagandist Podolyaka, who knows how to "suck victories out of his finger" on any occasion, stopped mentioning the "quick encirclement" of the Donetsk Ukraine Army groupings.

Russian troops are firmly "stuck" EVERYWHERE.

There is no mobilization. Yesterday the president did not even hint at the possibility of it. And without mobilization, victory over the so-called "Ukraine" is impossible "from the word go".

The AF of Ukraine, in spite of constant losses, will soon receive tens of thousands of mobilized troops, and within a couple of months their number will reach 2-3 hundred thousand. They will be given weapons by "dear Western partners" - in any quantity, including the most modern ones. They are already sending them.

The moment is not far off when the Ukrainian command, which has recovered from the first shock, will throw its troops into counterattacks in the most vulnerable (for our troops) directions.

And against this background, the vile smell of "new Minsk betrayal" is increasingly felt in the air. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Kremlin is no longer planning to fight to victory.

Except that there will be no "Minsk-3". A few more weeks of "standing" - and instead of a "mutually acceptable compromise" (to which the slimy Medinsky hints) - the "respected Ukrainian partners" will once again demand unconditional surrender from the Kremlin. That is: "withdraw troops, surrender Donbass, return Crimea", and then "pay and repent." TOTAL SILENCE.

And then the war will have to go on. In much more difficult conditions and with a much stronger opponent.

But in the meantime - "drip! drip! drip!" - the days are gone, the opportunities associated with the most invaluable resource (after human lives) - time - are gone.

Pub: Mar 19 2022 16:41 UTC"
 
^^^ Here is the original Strelkov's text - https://vk.com/iistrelkov?w=wall-129997795_177666

Comments by other VK users are also interesting:


https://vk-com.translate.goog/iistrelkov?w=wall-129997795_177666&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=pl


WzwVhWy.png
 
Since 2014 there has been official embargo on export of weaponry from the European Union to Russia:

https://www.sipri.org/databases/embargoes/eu_arms_embargoes/Russia/EU-embargo-on-Russia

EU embargo on Russia

In response to the Russian involvement in the conflict in Ukraine that started in early 2014, the EU imposed on 31 July 2014 sanctions against Russia, including an arms embargo, by adopting Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, and Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014.

The sanctions prohibit any involvement in the supply of arms and services related to military to Russia or dual use items for military use or military end-users in Russia by nationals of EU states or from the territories of EU states, unless contracts or agreements for such supplies had been concluded before 1 august 2014. The prohibition includes involvement in transport or financing of arms and dual use goods for military use for Russia. The prohibition includes the export of items that are to be subsequently re-exported from Russia to a third country.

In addition the import, purchase or transport of arms from Russia was prohibited, unless contracts or agreements had been concluded before 1 august 2014 and with the exception of items and services necessary for the maintenance of equipment already within the EU.

The embargo was initially in place until 31 July 2015, but has since been extended regularly. It is currently in place until 31 January 2022.

Last updated on 29 July 2021
Embargo type: EU embargoes
Entry into force: 31 July 2014
Establishing document: 2014/512/CFSP

Documents related to this arms embargo:

EU Council Regulation No 833/2014 (2014) - https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2016-03/2014.pdf
EU Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP (2014) - https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2016-03/CFSP_11.pdf
EU embargo on Russia | SIPRI - https://www.sipri.org/databases/embargoes/eu_arms_embargoes/Russia/EU-embargo-on-Russia

^^^
Germany, France & a few other EU states have illegally exported weapons to Russia despite the embargo:

Gjlk7IQ.jpg
 

This thread has been viewed 10965 times.

Back
Top