Will Russia Attack Ukraine?

[Riverman]

If you see the following fragment from Dugin, Putin's ideological Rasputin, the context is clear. He is visible relieved about the war. 'Now we are on an island' and he seems to be glad. It's so funded in an extremist hate towards liberal democracy, "the seapowers". It's same as in the past with for example Lenin, they absorb western theory and then they construct an anti-these, full of resentment... Dugin and Putin want to turn the clock back to czaristic times. That's the real agenda of the Kremlin...it's an extreme collectivistic even totalitarian aim...

Dugin is not Putin and what else should they do? Cry about how they being betrayed by the West, the USA in particular? That's something they did for years and nobody cared, but probably just laughed. That's the Russia the US policy created. They alienated and betrayed the Russians on every occasion, Biden personally in particular. Have you heard what he told Putin over the years? How he humiliated and mocked him, on every occasion? He represents the American arrogance the best, his whole life does.

[Northener]

Dugin is not Putin and what else should they do? Cry about how they being betrayed by the West, the USA in particular? That's something they did for years and nobody cared, but probably just laughed. That's the Russia the US policy created. They alienated and betrayed the Russians on every occasion, Biden personally in particular. Have you heard what he told Putin over the years? How he humiliated and mocked him, on every occasion? He represents the American arrogance the best, his whole life does.

What about building up their own country in stead of attack other ones? Why is there need to be an empire? Why is there a need to conquer Kyiv? You know what is is: superpower wannabe madness.

It was the free will of the Ukrainians to choose a route to Europe in stead of Russia. And I can imagine that I guess the liberal democratic concept is more attractive than Putin/Dugin's alternative. But free will of a country is not permitted....


And liberation, denazification, and unification with a brother folk (even the same folk) has ended in: who cares bomb the shit out of them. With three cheers from the Alps! Because those poor Putin was treated so badly. It's such a friendly, mild, person....so threatened badly by the Americans and Europeans. They made a devil out of him, but he had only good aims....come on Riverman dream on.

[Tomenable]

Ukraine war in maps:


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60506682

[Riverman]

What about building up their own country in stead of attack other ones? Why is there need to be an empire? Why is there a need to conquer Kyiv? You know what is is: superpower wannabe madness.

Ukraine is obviously not just another country, that's ridiculous for the Russian case. Its not like Poland or even the Baltic states. That's a completely different ballpark.

The other issue: Who says they want to conquer Kiev to occupy it? If they do, they only do it, because the Selenski regime refuses to negotiate in a serious and accountable manner. The Selenski regime, with the Ukrainian oligarchs and the USA in the background, purged the country, did indoctrinate it in an anti-Russian, hostile way and the country was supposed to become weaponised against Russia by the USA. That's just what happened.
This conflict is not about being megalomaniac, or being cruel, or whatever, its about concrete security, economical and friendly minorities interests. To blame it all on Putin and "wannabe madness": That's crazy.

There were plenty of peaceful options, for both sides, to solve that conflict, but Ukraine, not Russia, did refuse them all.

It was the free will of the Ukrainians to choose a route to Europe in stead of Russia.

You mean after billions of money flew into the country for propaganda, the oligarchs and the US services manipulated the public and the Ukrainian government purged the country from opposing views?

I don't mind the Ukrainians to choose their route to Europe, but not that way, not in these borders. Should the Western and Central Ukrainians, which are primarily behind these plans, and want it, go, but leave the pro-Russian East behind. Simple as that.

And I can imagine that I guess the liberal democratic concept is more attractive than Putin/Dugin's alternative. But free will of a country is not permitted....

I don't care for countries. Countries are just pieces of land. I care for people. And if the people in the East, especially those in Donbas and Crimea, prefer to join Russia, they should be able to do so. Its not even a Russian suppresion or force, rather, they liberated them from an Ukrainian state they didn't wanted to be part of.
Of course, I would have preferred a truly free and democratic Ukraine, in which the people could have decided, on their own, and region by region, what they want to do. Without the pressure from Kiev, without the pressure from Moscow. But the massive manipulation in the Ukraine by the oligarchs, the Selenski regime and the USA, as well as in Donbas the takeover of pro-Russians, prevented that in both areas, it was, unfortunately, never a real option.

It should have been, because I'm all for the right of self-determination for a people in such a situation. It would be, in any case, being preferable to fight this out with all the losses and victims. As things are, the Ukrainian parts which are clearly pro-Western and anti-Russian by now should have the right to go their way, but they should leave the East alone and with Russia. That's by far the best solution for all sides. Its about people, not "a state".

And liberation, denazification, and unification with a brother folk (even the same folk) has ended in: who cares bomb the shit out of them.

If snipers hide in a building, the building gets levelled. That's the rule of war, its no cruelty as an end in itself, its no genocide, its no deliberate attack on civilians, like the American propaganda claims. You can see the Russians helping the civilians and bringing them food etc., once they got "liberated" and an area being secured, militarily. The acts you are talking about are the results of intensive fighting and the Ukrainians using civilian structures as their hideout and fighting base.
To use that against the idea of ethnic brotherhood and what else, these necessities of war, is just obscene. It doesn't contradict anything.

An appartment block with artillery at its feet and dozens of snipers on its floors is a military target, whether there are civilians inside of it or close by, or not. That's nothing the Russians choose, its this sort of urban warfare. So far I have not heard of a single proven case in which the Russians deliberately, intentionally, killed innocent ethnic Russian civilians.

There is a new movie on World War II, the British trying to destroy the GESTAPO headquarter in Kopenhagen. You know what they hit instead? A school. The allies killed and destroyed a lot of civilians in World War II, deliberately, intentionally, but in this case, it was an accident.

Operation Carthage, on 21 March 1945, was a British air raid on Copenhagen, Denmark during the Second World War which killed 145 civilians. The target of the raid was the Shellhus, the Gestapo headquarters in the city centre. It was used for the storage of dossiers and the torture of Danish citizens during interrogations. The Danish Resistance had long asked the British to conduct a raid against the site. The building was destroyed, 18 prisoners were freed and Nazi anti-resistance activities were disrupted.^[1] Part of the raid was mistakenly directed against a nearby school; the raid caused 125 civilian deaths (including 86 schoolchildren and 18 adults at the school).

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

You think the Russians can prevent any such accidents from happening?

The USA weren't able to do it, anywhere, with their precision guided material, under much better and more safe (for them) circumstances. That's just war itself. Its no war crime, its no genocide, its urban warfare as such which causes this.

With three cheers from the Alps! Because those poor Putin was treated so badly. It's such a friendly, mild, person....so threatened badly by the Americans and Europeans. They made a devil out of him, but he had only good aims....come on Riverman dream on.

He worked for the legitimate Russian interests. That's what he did, that's what he does. Its not bad, its not good, its the way it is, and people which can think, can predict some outcomes and reactions. The American arrogance, primarily the American, not the European, led to the alienation of Russia from the West. That was unnecessary, it was preventable, it was stupid.

I'm not saying Putin is such a great man or always doing right, he doesn't, and we know he can become brutal. But he, usually, tried to achieve legitimate, limited goals, for the Russian state and people, for the Russian interests. Oftentimes the "minimal approach" I'd say. The way the USA and Biden in particular mistreated him, at a time he was still open to talks and cooperation, is a complete failure and disgrace to the arrogant US diplomacy. Its inexcusable and it will fall back on the USA big time. The United States will regret it. Probably even Biden lives long enough to regret it.

[Riverman]

Selenski is no more democratic than Putin, he just does what the Americans want, that's why he's being portrayed as a "heroic freedom fighter":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwwG2mM_7QA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oifqp1bJp8Y

Oligarchs (especially Kolomoisky) and the USA in the back.

Very good analysis of an Ukrainian scholar:

"...only the hardcore Ukrainian nationalists would not agree on a compromise..."

The majority would, its Selenski, the USA and the most extreme nationalists which prevent a viable compromise. I agree Selenski must present his people and supporters some sort of success, in a painful compromise. Like a future EU membership, closer association soon or the like. He must get something. But a compromise is a necessity, if we want to prevent more human suffering and escalation.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vAAyIGBRk4

[Northener]

Ukraine is obviously not just another country, that's ridiculous for the Russian case. Its not like Poland or even the Baltic states. That's a completely different ballpark.

I don't care for countries. Countries are just pieces of land.

Look like a double standard. Alle countries are equal (not necessary) except the Ukraine?

It all based on the sphere of influence of superpowers. I don't see this as a legitimation for war you do, That's the difference.

The other issue: Who says they want to conquer Kiev to occupy it?

What was that long caravan about? From the border of Belarus to Kyiv.... But because of the lousy performance of the Russian army they now rely on heavy artillery.

You mean after billions of money flew into the country for propaganda, the oligarchs and the US services manipulated the public and the Ukrainian government purged the country from opposing views?

Big compagnies from IKEA to mac Donald invested in Russia. All over now.
No the Ukraine is not free from corruption and the road to the EU was a long one, nevertheless they have sovereignty, ypu call that obsolete....

I don't mind the Ukrainians to choose their route to Europe, but not that way, not in these borders. Should the Western and Central Ukrainians, which are primarily behind these plans, and want it, go, but leave the pro-Russian East behind. Simple as that.

It should have been, because I'm all for the right of self-determination for a people in such a situation. It would be, in any case, being preferable to fight this out with all the losses and victims. As things are, the Ukrainian parts which are clearly pro-Western and anti-Russian by now should have the right to go their way, but they should leave the East alone and with Russia. That's by far the best solution for all sides. Its about people, not "a state".

Putin was building up the military and the anti western rhetoric for years....see Dugin.

You think the Russians can prevent any such accidents from happening?

Yes they could they probably thought they could conquer Ukraine in no time. Wrong. Now they really on heavy artillery, long distance stuff. All to the expense of the population that is well known.

He worked for the legitimate Russian interests.

I'm not saying Putin is such a great man or always doing right, he doesn't, and we know he can become brutal. But he, usually, tried to achieve legitimate, limited goals, for the Russian state and people, for the Russian interests. Oftentimes the "minimal approach" I'd say. The way the USA and Biden in particular mistreated him, at a time he was still open to talks and cooperation, is a complete failure and disgrace to the arrogant US diplomacy. Its inexcusable and it will fall back on the USA big time. The United States will regret it. Probably even Biden lives long enough to regret it

As you don't care about countries I don't care about Russian beter Putin's interest, megalomanic thought of a dicator. Not in the interest of the Russian people.

[Riverman]

Look like a double standard. Alle countries are equal (not necessary) except the Ukraine?

It all based on the sphere of influence of superpowers. I don't see this as a legitimation for war you do, That's the difference.

The war wasn't started by Russia recently, it was only escalated because of the Ukrainian actions. That's a major difference. Another major difference is, that Russia and Ukraine are not just two countries, they have a deep, multi-level relationship.

What was that long caravan about? From the border of Belarus to Kyiv.... But because of the lousy performance of the Russian army they now rely on heavy artillery.

Without threatening Kiev, the Ukrainians would never negotiate.

Putin was building up the military and the anti western rhetoric for years....see Dugin.

What's Western anyway? Are we American vassals. Europe would have provided chances for a peaceful cooperation with Russia, which Putin wanted too. It was America and people like Biden which ruined it.

As you don't care about countries I don't care about Russian beter Putin's interest, megalomanic thought of a dicator. Not in the interest of the Russian people.

The state, the country, it is just a mean, its no end in itself. And if a strong Russia makes the Russians more secure and influential, if it brings more ethnic Russians in their different territories together, what if not that is in the interest of the Russian people?

To have McDonalds and IKEA? To get flooded with American propaganda and NGO's, with political money? You think that's in the best interest of the Russian people? In the interest of any people on the globe?




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obJ6auZuDkw

I do eat Fast Food at times, but I won't say that's the most important freedom we got. The way Big Tech, lobbyist and non-governmental institutions control public opinion is far more important and interesting to watch. And they don't do good to Europe or the European people either. Ukraine is in that sense even more corrupt and manipulated than Russia, its an extreme case actually, under almost complete oligarchic, big money & big tech and CIA control. Its no role model for anything.

[Riverman]

Besides, all those companies will come back, but if the USA go on with their warmongering and blackmailing major players, the Dollar Empire will be gone. Finally, Russia made the first step:
https://www.dw.com/en/putin-unfriend...les/a-61234904

I know that there are now negotiations planned between China and India, while in Arabia new connections being made, and Iran plays a new role too. Things are moving quickly. Biden and his "New World American centered Order" can go...
If the American establishment keeps overstretching things and press the whole world into hostage, the Dollar Empire will be gone far quicker than anticipated. And unlike those companies in Russia, it won't come back - NEVER!

I also know some in Washington are ready to start a war to keep things together, they are ready to start World War III, as long as the USA still has the power to win it, "at all costs." Those maniacs would ruin the world for their vision, I hope they don't prevail. And like I said before: Russia and Putin is humble and moderate in comparison: They just want Russian people in their state and no Americans at their border. They protect their allies and ethnic brothers, the base in Crimea they fought a couple of very costly wars for. That's moderate, that's not excessive, and its a far better argument and legitimation than the USA had for 9 of 10 of their wars, throughout the states history.
Because how often were they attacked or pushed that far? And still they attacked other nations, all around the globe.

Russia did wrong to Ukraine, because so many losses of human lifes and goods is not worth it. But its only that, otherwise they are morally equals to the Kiev Selenski regime, if not superiour. They should have not started that war out of purely humane reasons, not because they had no right to. But then again, Selenski denied all peace talks and peace offers, but armed up with the USA, threatening with a NATO nuclear shield and to attack Donbas, which they did, to purge the country from all Russian friends, what they did. This led to this war, nothing else.

[Northener]

The war wasn't started by Russia recently, it was only escalated because of the Ukrainian actions. That's a major difference. Another major difference is, that Russia and Ukraine are not just two countries, they have a deep, multi-level relationship.

The declaration of war came clearly from Putin. Even Dugin clearly states that.

Without threatening Kiev, the Ukrainians would never negotiate.

So fare the care about the people Riverman?

What's Western anyway? Are we American vassals. Europe would have provided chances for a peaceful cooperation with Russia, which Putin wanted too. It was America and people like Biden which ruined it.

American vassal? I live in a country member of the NATO, no problem with an American umbrella. On the whole my country and the US have good relations. No problem with that.

The state, the country, is just a mean, its no end in itself. And if a strong Russia makes the Russians more secure and influential, if it brings more ethnic Russians in their different territories together, what if not that is in the interest of the Russian people?

The thing is that Putin decided what is Russian interest and what not he is an autocrat.

To have McDonalds and IKEA? To get flooded with American propaganda and NGO's and political money? You think that's in the best interest of the Russian people? In the interest of any people on the globe?

IKEA for sure mc Donalds is more doubtful but beer will do the job too.....

[Riverman]

Austrians don't need mc Donalds.

Are we at the point of exchanging images of fat people? Should I search for some Dutch fatties? Trying some "body shaming"?

I refrain from doing so

This was a concrete case, and by the way, he was a civil society Russian activist, show some respect for his democratic actions.

[Northener]

Are we at the point of exchanging images of fat people? Should I search for some Dutch fatties? Trying some "body shaming"?

I refrain from doing so

This was a concrete case, and by the way, he was a civil society Russian activist, show some respect for his democratic actions.

You are correct I will expel it.

[Riverman]

Love this guy, he just explains how the American interference caused the conflict and how "the West" plays the hypocrisy game:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1humfpe1K4w

Germany and France knew this, they didn't want the escalation caused by the USA. But the Americans did it anyway, like always...

[Northener]

Love this guy, he just explains how the American interference caused the conflict and how "the West" plays the hypocrisy game:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1humfpe1K4w

Germany and France knew this, they didn't want the escalation caused by the USA. But the Americans did it anyway, like always...

Fill in Russia for US and he would have been in jail in Putin's Russia.

[Riverman]

Fill in Russia for US and he would have been in jail in Putin's Russia.

You know the difference? The American establishment has so much manipulative power and influence, they don't need to imprison and kill people directly that often. The control exerted by the oligarchy in the USA is that big, as has been seen in the last elections, that they were not afraid of being overruled. That changed with Trump, somewhat, and that's why the individuals freedoms being restricted, the social, economical, political and legal pressure on people having dissenting opinions being increased in the West also. There is a difference in quantity, not quality, in many "Western states".

But what's even more, the USA with their "Liberal Hegemony", always created laws in their establishment's favour, and even though its all skewed and manipulated, in their favour, they still break it all the time! It only really matters, if adversaries break it, if the American establishemnt does, its a minor issue probably being discussed, but it never has the same consequences. Otherwise the USA would have to bomb itself and imprison a large fraction of its current and former leaders...

A good take on the American hypocrisy, with detailled, concrete cases:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tov0p7Srxw

Just like Russia and Ukraine, the USA too have no moral higher ground at all. They just using different, more money and media driven, means for control, as long as they can. If the establishment would be threatened, from in- or outside, as are the Russian political leaders, how would they react? Still more liberal, still more tolerant? I doubt it. The power system is just different, and allows more freedom to the individual, because of their different goals and long term manipulation strategy. Other powers, which can't compete on that level, have to protect their states from this money & media driven influence from the US.
That's just logical and it isn't even about democracy primarily, because there were and are democracies under threat from the USA, and there were and are much worse dictatorships and systems than Russia under US protection and with US support. Its a geopolitical gambling of the US establishment, and with the Selenski regime, they now have their pawn in Ukraine which is ready to sacrifice his people to wear Russia down. Otherwise he could have made peace 2 years ago.

[Vallicanus]

That's a piece of nonsense-propaganda. Just because the Russians decided to invade Ukraine, to prevent American troops on their Southern border, their pro-Russian minority in Donbas being expelled and Crimea taken away, the sanctions never lifted - which is bad enough, like I said all the time, they don't plan to "conquer Europe to the Atlantic". They are not even capable of doing that and can be happy if they manage to control Ukraine. Such claims are just beyond ridiculous and being only brought up by anti-Russian propagandists.

I was obviously not for Russia invading Ukraine, I think its wrong and a humane catastrophy for not good enough reasons. But talking about the ongoing war and the one sided, biased American dominated propaganda, one has to be realistic and more objective. The Ukrainian regime is, overall, not on higher moral ground at all, because its their actions which led to this escalation and its their refusal of taking negotiations seriously which causes this war to escalate even further and being dragged on. The war is wrong, so are both sides. The one sided anti-Russian propaganda is what makes me angry, because its an unfair nonsense portrayal of what really happens there and in the end sheer warmongering for World War III and even more dependence of the Europeans from the American overlord.

How are you party to Putin's aspirations?

All dictators push their luck when they smell out weakness. The EU is militarily very weak and without US bases would be easily overrun.

[Vallicanus]

China will also be noting Russian military incompetence with an eye on Siberia.

[Riverman]

How are you party to Putin's aspirations?

All dictators push their luck when they smell out weakness. The EU is militarily very weak and without US bases would be easily overrun.

The only reason Russia might attack West of the line of Belarussia and Ukraine now or in the next years is if it gets pressured or even openly attacked by one of these nations or the USA.

Which fault would it be?

Its not Putins plan, its not in Russia's interest, as long as they have diplomatic and economic ties with Europe - then even less. But what does the USA want? Make us Europeans more dependent from the USA, cut all economic and diplomatic ties with Russia and potentially even attack them directly.
That's the problem, otherwise there would be no problem.

The USA should have stayed out of Ukraine and Georgia, that would have been a great start keeping peace. We had no issues, no problems with Russia, before they played "global chief" in Russias foregarden.

Otherwise: If I would take that serious, which isn't the case at the moment, I would suggest Europe gets its own strong army and nuclear arsenal, not staying a dependent vassal from the US establishment, which becomes more mental every year.

China will also be noting Russian military incompetence with an eye on Siberia.

Ukraine is a major European state, with some of the biggest and best equipped armies in Europe. They get full scale Western support, technical, intel, weapons, mercenaries, money, resources, propaganda etc, etc.

This is not Iraq, this is not even Syria, its a much harder conflict and Russia still tries to keep civilian casualties low, while fighting an extremely difficult urban warfare, in every major city the Ukrainians use as "civilian filled fortresses".

You see the Ukrainians doing that great anywhere outside of these urban battlefields? I don't. Its the house to house urban warfare which keeps the Russians busy, causes "incidents" and "collateral damage", as well as higher losses for the Russias.

[traveller]

Now we see Russians dig in in many places, ancipating counter-attacks. There is talk that they don’t have many rockets left either.

Ukraine has been really good at attacking Russian supply lines as well and there is talk that they are reorganising into smaller mobile units - harder to catch while attacking from the woods.

Russian advances have been along main roads only and there have been anecdotal stories of tank crews asking for directions as well as running out of gas en masse. The amount of territory they really control seems to be smaller than it seems.

However, the southern and southeastern areas they conquered would turn into another Golan or Kashmir. Russia would fortify the areas and wait for the dust to settle. I wonder though if the whole Azov Sea coast is defensible or would Ukrainians be able to create a gap somehwere to disrupt Russian logistics.

Perhaps Putin will be removed by his comrades in the course of all this or he’ll start a major purge around himself. Top intelligence officials have been humiliated or put into house arrest. The defence minister hasn’t been seen for almost 2 weeks. Putin held a rally in Moscow where the TV transmission was cut. Apparently there are videos showing he was being whistled out over there.

[Northener]

You know the difference? The American establishment has so much manipulative power and influence, they don't need to imprison and kill people directly that often. The control exerted by the oligarchy in the USA is that big, as has been seen in the last elections, that they were not afraid of being overruled. That changed with Trump, somewhat, and that's why the individuals freedoms being restricted, the social, economical, political and legal pressure on people having dissenting opinions being increased in the West also. There is a difference in quantity, not quality, in many "Western states".

But what's even more, the USA with their "Liberal Hegemony", always created laws in their establishment's favour, and even though its all skewed and manipulated, in their favour, they still break it all the time! It only really matters, if adversaries break it, if the American establishemnt does, its a minor issue probably being discussed, but it never has the same consequences. Otherwise the USA would have to bomb itself and imprison a large fraction of its current and former leaders...

A good take on the American hypocrisy, with detailled, concrete cases:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tov0p7Srxw

Just like Russia and Ukraine, the USA too have no moral higher ground at all. They just using different, more money and media driven, means for control, as long as they can. If the establishment would be threatened, from in- or outside, as are the Russian political leaders, how would they react? Still more liberal, still more tolerant? I doubt it. The power system is just different, and allows more freedom to the individual, because of their different goals and long term manipulation strategy. Other powers, which can't compete on that level, have to protect their states from this money & media driven influence from the US.
That's just logical and it isn't even about democracy primarily, because there were and are democracies under threat from the USA, and there were and are much worse dictatorships and systems than Russia under US protection and with US support. Its a geopolitical gambling of the US establishment, and with the Selenski regime, they now have their pawn in Ukraine which is ready to sacrifice his people to wear Russia down. Otherwise he could have made peace 2 years ago.

I'm not talking about moral higher ground, I'm talking about democratic institutions, free voting, free press , checks and balances, trias politica etc etc. In that respect are Russia and the US incomparable. Russia is moving toward an autocratic, repressive regime.

Personally I have three cheers for liberal democracy and one for capitalism ;)

[Malaparte]

Interview with Dutch political scientist Kees van der Pijl on situation in Ukraine

https://odysee.com/@jermwarfare:2/ke...ssia-ukraine:7

[Vallicanus]

The only reason Russia might attack West of the line of Belarussia and Ukraine now or in the next years is if it gets pressured or even openly attacked by one of these nations or the USA.

Which fault would it be?

Its not Putins plan, its not in Russia's interest, as long as they have diplomatic and economic ties with Europe - then even less. But what does the USA want? Make us Europeans more dependent from the USA, cut all economic and diplomatic ties with Russia and potentially even attack them directly.
That's the problem, otherwise there would be no problem.

The USA should have stayed out of Ukraine and Georgia, that would have been a great start keeping peace. We had no issues, no problems with Russia, before they played "global chief" in Russias foregarden.

Otherwise: If I would take that serious, which isn't the case at the moment, I would suggest Europe gets its own strong army and nuclear arsenal, not staying a dependent vassal from the US establishment, which becomes more mental every year.



Ukraine is a major European state, with some of the biggest and best equipped armies in Europe. They get full scale Western support, technical, intel, weapons, mercenaries, money, resources, propaganda etc, etc.

This is not Iraq, this is not even Syria, its a much harder conflict and Russia still tries to keep civilian casualties low, while fighting an extremely difficult urban warfare, in every major city the Ukrainians use as "civilian filled fortresses".

You see the Ukrainians doing that great anywhere outside of these urban battlefields? I don't. Its the house to house urban warfare which keeps the Russians busy, causes "incidents" and "collateral damage", as well as higher losses for the Russias.

Europe will never build up a strong army.

Face reality.

For Europeans it's a case of choosing either the USA with a lot of hypocrisy but some genuine freedom or tyrannical Russia which has been a stranger to all forms of freedom for centuries.

I prefer the USA. You be a Russia fanboy if you want.

[Northener]

Interview with Dutch political scientist Kees van der Pijl on situation in Ukraine

https://odysee.com/@jermwarfare:2/ke...ssia-ukraine:7

You seem to be attracted to the political area were les extrêmes se touchent.....(old) marxist Van der Pijl suggested earlier that Israel was behind 9/11, the shot down of MH17 plan (by Russian separatist in the Ukraine, with 300 victims) in his eyes was due to neoliberal EU and hyper capitalistic Kyiv etc etc.

[Northener]

Europe will never build up a strong army.

Face reality.

For Europeans it's a case of choosing either the USA with a lot of hypocrisy but some genuine freedom or tyrannical Russia which has been a stranger to all forms of freedom for centuries.

I prefer the USA. You be a Russia fanboy if you want.

I guess this will be the case, especially Germany is upgrading his army now.

I agree cooperation with the USA stays necessary.

[Malaparte]

Europe will never build up a strong army.

Face reality.

For Europeans it's a case of choosing either the USA with a lot of hypocrisy but some genuine freedom or tyrannical Russia which has been a stranger to all forms of freedom for centuries.

I prefer the USA. You be a Russia fanboy if you want.

I listened to an interview the other day with a Finnish nationalist. He takes the side of the Ukrainian nationalists, but emphasizes need for Europeans to break free of the American empire. Among his points:

1 -- NATO renders its members (unnaturally) dependent on US military power, and the US is in steep decline. Currently only Turkey & France have capacity for independent action, and France only because it did not return to NATO command until 2009 (De Gaulle pulled out in 1966)
2 -- non-NATO country Finland, with a tiny population, has three times the artillery capability of Germany and an army of 300,000 (compared with Russia's 500,000) -- almost all Finnish men have seen military service, and many have received renewed training during this crisis
3 -- the current crisis will reveal NATO to be completely ineffectual as a military force -->> the US cannot prevail against Russia in Eastern Europe and, knowing this, it will not intervene directly to save Ukraine -->> the US is an unreliable ally (would it defend the Baltic states? does it have capacity to do so?)
4 -- European countries must therefore develop strong militaries of their own -->>they must band together to defend Europe against both Russia and migrant invasion
5 -- it is an open question whether Europe should have a pan-European force under unified command or separate national armies that cooperate closely
6 -- Europe must reach a new security agreement with Russia, even as it arms itself against Russia
7 -- Russia, like the United States, is hostile to European nationalism and collective sovereignty of Europe
8 -- Russian aims to "denazify" the Ukraine directly recall Soviet aims to "denazify" Finland during the 1939 Winter War
9 -- even though Zelensky is a puppet of the US & globalist interests, many true nationalists hold positions of power in the Ukraine army and government -->> a Russian victory will mean certain death for many nationalists (by firing squad or otherwise) and the eradication of nationalism as an ideology, at least in the areas of Ukraine under Russian control
10 -- this European nationalist perspective differs from the perspective of American nationalists, who tend to sympathize with Russia out of a reflex against their own media and government

[Malaparte]

You seem to be attracted to the political area were les extrêmes se touchent.....(old) marxist Van der Pijl suggested earlier that Israel was behind 9/11, the shot down of MH17 plan (by Russian separatist in the Ukraine, with 300 victims) in his eyes was due to neoliberal EU and hyper capitalistic Kyiv etc etc.

I believe the right/left divide is of no real significance. Other divisions are more important, in particular globalist vs anti-globalist

I'm basically a nationalist, but a qualified nationalist insofar as I recognize that wwii demonstrated that the European nation-state is no longer viable as a way of organizing military force. So some kind of European confederation or "empire" must replace NATO and the EU, but with principles of subsidiarity --->>> a kind of Holy Roman Empire

Don't forget that I also quoted Vigano approvingly, so my extremes touch at least three ways