zazen

I think whats going on is that there are different definitions of what winning looks like. In the mainstream narrative / establishment view, a win or defeat is total, not partial (little room for nuance). When they say Russia hasn't won it's because their perspective assumes "winning" is purely about territorial expansion (taking all of Ukraine in total) rather than strategic positioning, sustainability, and long-term advantage. To them they need Russia pacificed (Macrons words) and balkanized / fractured (Kaja Kallas words). From Chat GPT: ''The establishment definition of victory: Russia is weakened, contained, and ideally broken apart. This means Ukraine pushing Russia out of all occupied territories, Russia suffering internal collapse, and Putin’s government being overthrown. In short, Russia must lose decisively, ensuring it can never challenge Western primacy again. This vision is ideological, maximalist, and detached from reality. The realist definition of victory: Acknowledging that Russia cannot be defeated within its own sphere of influence and that continuing the war only leads to more Western losses. The realistic "win" is actually minimizing defeat—cutting losses, preventing further escalation, and stabilizing Europe rather than chasing an impossible goal.'' Russia has already won where it matters most which is in its own sphere and backyard, in the areas that are logistically and strategically vital - mainly the Russian speaking areas. The establishment view of defeating Russia is defeating Russia at its borders or near them, but this is no easy task. The closer a country is to its own industrial base and supply lines, the harder it is to defeat them in a war of attrition. Russia can supply their front lines way longer than the West can - because Russia has the logistics, the cheap energy to run industry, and the raw materials and competitive labor to produce war material. Europe has none of those ingredients which is why they still haven't re-industrialised to match Russian capacity and their shelves / stockpiles are running low. Even US has said this which is why they need out of this war to gather some time to re-base. How is Europe going to outproduce Russia in arms and send those in a efficient manner to the Ukrainian front line when: They now have some of the highest energy costs, non-competitive labor cost, the needed raw materials and inputs are largely imported and have a complex supply chain, their supply line and logistics runs through multiple countries in Europe, and they are indebted to their eye balls compared to Russia (20% debt to GDP vs Europe's average 80% - UK, France, Italy, Spain and Portugal are over 100%) assuming they will take out loans to finance this, which is what they’ve said - further squeezing their economies that will energise a domestic backlash and fracture the political will needed to sustain war. Analysts who say Russia has won are speaking in practical military terms - in this war of attrition, where it matters - in Russia's backyard. The problem is that the Western establishment refuses to accept this reality because it undermines their larger agenda. Their war isn’t just about Ukraine but about permanently neutralizing Russia. That’s why they escalate, frame it as a fight for all of Europe, and why they indulge in ridiculous Hitler analogies. They need the public to believe that if Russia isn’t stopped in Ukraine, it will roll tanks into Denmark next. They are also using this as a scapegoat to divert attention away from their own failures and to cool down populist rage. But warmongering against Russia and turning a welfare economy into a war economy by cutting social welfare will only anger the public more and shift things even more right. But this is the delusion of the detached establishment. Also, speaking of Kursk as a holdout - just from today: https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-attack-force-ukraine-consider-pull-out-kursk/ They won't defeat China for the same reason they can't defeat Russia - China has even more of the advantages that Russia does. It's delusional to think you can go up against a near peer country with not just equivalent but superior industrial capacity to you, in their own sphere of influence and backyard where they have the home advantage, and superior logistics to push their production to the front line and into the theatre of war. This is if they even get to land. They'd first have to win in the sea - but China has 200 times the ship building capacity of the US, and the world largest navy. Their only hope is economic, but even there they most likely will fail. Trump has announced tariffs to address the $300 billion trade deficit between US and China. For China to lose $300 billion worth of trade due to these tariffs is the equivalent of them losing the GDP of their 10th largest city in GDP - which is Wuhan ironically lol. It's a bruise on the arm, but not crippling at all. Like Trump said to Zelensky “You don’t have the cards”

Saw a interesting tweet from Caitlin Johnstone related to this: ''People in politics and media who oppose the status quo often drift rightward, especially in the US; Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr are some clear recent examples. This is because the Trumpian political wing offers mainstream power and influence to those with an "anti-establishment" streak, while mainstream progressive politics doesn't offer anything close. If you're a right wing "populist" you can get elected president, while anyone to the left of Kamala Harris sees their campaigns sabotaged with smear campaigns and rigged primaries. We see a similar dynamic play out in independent media; you'll see many solidly leftist commentators drifting to the right as they find bigger numbers in attacking liberal institutions than attacking the Trumpian faction, because anti-establishment sentiment is much more mainstream on the right. A much larger audience pool has been allowed to amass there for hostility toward establishment institutions — because the right poses no threat to real power. And therein lies the key point. Anti-establishment figures in politics and punditry aren't drifting rightward because the right has better arguments or is more solidly grounded in truth and morality, they're drifting rightward because the so-called "populist right" has been allowed to flourish while its mirror on the left has not. Right wing "populism" has been allowed to flourish by the very power structures they purport to oppose, while the authentic left has been systematically dismantled by generations of aggressive imperial operations (look up COINTELPRO for example). That's why you see Trump backed by oligarchs, empire managers and DC swamp monsters and uplifted by the Murdoch press while anti-imperialist socialism can barely even be said to exist anywhere in the US-aligned world. So while the power and influence offered by right wing "populist" factions can be tempting, that power and influence only exists because those factions are supported and defended by the empire itself. Public discontent is being corralled toward establishment-friendly political structures so that it doesn't head anywhere that can threaten the mechanics of the empire, while authentic opposition to capitalism, militarism and empire building is viciously subverted by any means necessary. Bernie Sanders and AOC play the same role on the other side of the aisle, by the way, as do ostensibly leftist media like TYT who herd people back into support for the Democratic Party. Real opposition to real power is not permitted to ascend to the presidency of the world's most powerful government. It is marginalized, smeared and subverted, and kept as small as possible. That's why some who begin with sincere opposition to real power find themselves drawn to the right: it's larger and offers more opportunities, because it is more aligned with the ruling power structures of our day. It's fool's gold. It sells you power and influence so that you can fight the power, but after you've paid you find yourself on the same side as the power. You sold out for nothing. You might as well have skipped the middle part and gone directly to collecting the big bucks whoring yourself out to mainstream politics and media defending the empire without pretending to be something else. Staying true and authentic can be hard. It comes at a price. You don't get to see your favorite politicians win elections and take important positions in government. You don't get to amass tens of millions of loyal followers who hang on your every word. You lose friends and alienate family members with your positions on war and capitalism and imperialism and Zionism. You can't even watch a movie or a show without being frequently disgusted by the empire propaganda you'll see. It isn't pretty. But at least it's real. It's another one of those red pill vs blue pill deals. Do you want disconcerting truths or comforting lies? If you want to be true to what's true, you don't compromise your values to support political factions which support the very power structures you oppose. You stay focused on the enemy. You keep throwing sand in the gears of the machine, hoping that if enough people throw enough sand it will eventually come crashing down, but self-assured that you're going to keep throwing sand either way, win or lose. Sure it's hard. Sure it entails a lot of disappointments and losses. But at least it's real. At least it stands a chance at beating the bastards, however small. As weak and pathetic as you can feel throwing haymakers at a globe-spanning empire some days, it sure beats the hell out of collaborating with it. And that's exactly what you'd be doing by joining up with fraudulent political factions which claim to oppose the empire.''

Which side has been the one not seeking a genuine peace? Biden didn't engage directly with Russia for 3 years. Zelensky outright banned negotiations by decree. The Istanbul deal was torpedoed after US lapdog Boris Johnson met Zelesnky. No one even mentions the Nord Stream blow up. As for Trump, there seems to be a larger game being played that lends this to being disingenuous. It seems they’re trying to posture as anti-war (which domestically people are sick of) but are gearing up for one with China. They understand their position isn't currently strong and wouldn't be in confronting both Russia and China, so are off setting the costs and burden to their European counterparts. They also understand domestic sentiment around war being at an all time low, so need to repackage how its sold or have others (proxies) do it for them. Empires still gonna empire. Perhaps it’s just a cosmetic change rather than a characteristic change. There's still seems to be a continuity of agenda but a shift in strategy in executing that agenda - of which the goal is always primacy over peace. Part of the current strategy is seeming to be peace maker while the imperial machines gears shift to Asia. It's like the US is telling Europe ''keep this dagger at Russia's throat'' so we can look like the good guys (optics), whilst we sharpen our dagger (which we know is rusty) for China. https://news.sky.com/story/us-troops-will-not-be-used-to-secure-ukraine-peace-following-ceasefire-deal-with-putin-trumps-defence-secretary-tells-allies-13307774 ''Mr Hegseth said Washington must focus on the threat posed by China and securing its own borders. He added: "Stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe. "As the United States shifts its attention to these threats, European allies must lead from the front,"

@Nemra Under Biden Israel destroyed Gaza and plausibly genocided Palestinians. Biden did nothing to attempt to stop the Ukraine war or diplomatically speak to Putin. Nord stream pipeline was blown up whilst he was in office (most people assume it was the US). He gave Ukraine the green light to fire missiles into Russian territory escalating us towards WW3. Does that mean he didn’t do anything good? Of course not. Point is, your point about bad things Trump has done or is doing now doesn’t mean he’s incapable of doing something good here and there. Aligning on something like ending the war and de-escalating tensions with a nuclear heavyweight like Russia doesn’t mean wholesale backing Trump either.

Zelensky got cold feet after seeing how shaky his European counterparts convictions were when it came time to bite the bullet and send their own to fight in Ukraine. Now he’s trying to patch things up with the US.. Italy and Poland have among the most troops in the bloc and are against fighting alongside the Brits and French who are foaming at the mouth to take on Russia. Europe is like a centipede with each nation being a leg. It only takes a few to move in a different direction to cause the centipede to halt or creep too slow due to friction. Political will is a key element in sustaining a war, let alone starting one. Here we have a house divided against one mostly unified in Russia.

@Nemra I'm saying in regards to Ukraine what he’s doing seems way better than escalation - not that he’s good domestically or should be in power. @Breakingthewall Indian stream 2 lol that’s a good additional context. We could even use the current situation with Canada to hypothetically draw the parallel. Imagine now since Trump is imposing tariffs Canadians start getting nationalistic and prosecuting Americans and suppressing American culture in Canada. Chat GPT: Imagine This Hypothetical Scenario For decades, China and the U.S. were locked in a Cold War—a global, ideological, and military rivalry that nearly ended in nuclear annihilation multiple times. China ultimately won, the U.S. collapsed, and for a time, China reigned supreme. But now, years later, the U.S. is rebuilding itself, challenging China’s global dominance again, and China wants to keep it down permanently. Now, right on the U.S. border, Canada starts shifting. It undergoes a political revolution, installs a fiercely anti-American government, and begins cracking down on pro-U.S. Canadians—banning the American flag, erasing American history from schools, shutting down pro-American media, and even militarily suppressing Canadian provinces that still feel tied to the U.S. And who is backing this new Canada? China - their old rival who they nearly blew the world up over. This same nation, China, pours billions into arming Canada, embeds its military forces, and begins installing missile systems along the U.S.-Canada border—pointed directly at Washington, New York, and Chicago. And this isn’t a conspiracy—China’s own think tanks openly discuss their strategy to weaken and encircle the U.S., stating that American resurgence must be stopped at all costs. But here’s the real kicker: China has a long track record of invading countries, toppling governments, and breaking promises about its military intentions. It has: Launched wars under false pretenses , bombed nations into collapse, overthrown leaders who didn’t submit to its interests, crossed security red lines in the past, lying about its true motives. And now this same proven war machine is offering “security guarantees” to Canada—just like NATO has done with Ukraine. Would the U.S. just sit back and watch? Would it do nothing while: 1. A hostile, foreign-backed military buildup emerges on its doorstep? 2. Pro-U.S. populations in Canada are discriminated against, silenced or even attacked? Of course not. The U.S. would take action—diplomatically first, militarily if necessary—because no serious power would allow this threat to materialize.'' We don't have to condone the most blatant act of aggression (invasion) but we can understand it. The same way people can condemn Hamas on October 7th, yet understand the context in which it happened and who the aggressor is that pushed a certain group (Palestinians/Hamas or Russians) into such a corner that they were left with no choice but to act out in such a way.

@Nemra Even the silliest most corrupt people may once in a while do something good, even if it isn’t for pure intentions. If we frame everything someone does as bad regardless of the action that’s just being ideological and dogmatic.

@Breakingthewall Yeah, check this out - like a Time Machine. “Having masterminded the coup in February against the democratically elected government in Kiev, Washington's planned seizure of Russia's historic, legitimate warm-water naval base in Crimea failed. The Russians defended themselves, as they have done against every threat and invasion from the west for almost a century. “But Nato's military encirclement has accelerated, along with US-orchestrated attacks on ethnic Russians in Ukraine. If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained "pariah" role will justify a Nato-run guerrilla war that is likely to spill into Russia itself.” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukraine-us-war-russia-john-pilger A good parallel scenario from Chat GPT: “Imagine India is rising on the world stage, but the U.S. or China starts arming Pakistan to the teeth, turning it into a military outpost right on India’s border. At the same time, Pakistan starts persecuting Punjabis, banning their language, cracking down on their identity—people with deep historical ties to India. Does India just sit back and say, “Oh well, that’s Pakistan’s business”? Hell no. India sees the writing on the wall. This isn’t just a border dispute—it’s a geopolitical squeeze, an attempt to box India in and weaken it. So India pushes back, whether through diplomacy or force, because no serious power allows a global rival to build a military foothold in a historically connected neighbor without responding. That’s exactly how Russia saw Ukraine. NATO wasn’t just expanding—it was turning Ukraine into a U.S.-backed battering ram against Russia. Ukraine wasn’t just independent—it was actively cracking down on its Russian-speaking population. And Russia wasn’t just paranoid—it was reacting the way any major power would if a hostile alliance tried to install a military outpost on its doorstep. The only difference? When the U.S. or its allies do the same thing, it’s called “defending democracy.” When Russia does it, it’s called “imperialism.” Funny how that works.” India and Pakistan both share historical and ethnic ties with Punjabis - who were divided along the border. Works well as a example. The irony is that people call Russias move as some imperial expansionist play when it’s literally a response to Western imperialism itself!

@Breakingthewall People will conflate and inflate things without nuance. As a example - if Russians in Kazakhstan were being violently attacked or systematically discriminated against in a way that threatened their security, of course Russia would intervene, not because it wants to build the USSR, but because no nation willingly allows its people to be persecuted without taking action. Thats basic state responsibility. But the real irony is how the West justifies its own interventions. The US and NATO launch wars, sanctions, and regime change operations in countries halfway across the world in countries that have no historical, ethnic, or strategic connection to them - on the flimsiest moral pretexts. They claim they must protect democracy and defend human rights in places like Iraq, Libya, Syria, or Afghanistan.

If Putin wants to restore the Soviet Union, why hasn’t he invaded weaker, non-NATO former Soviet republics like Kazakhstan, Armenia, or Azerbaijan? If Putins goal has always been restoring the USSR, why would he bother trying to negotiate a security deal first? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2021_Russian_ultimatum_to_NATO He offered a proposal to NATO in December 2021, which the core demands of were rejected in January 2022, which then precipitated the invasion in February 2022.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/03/israel-prepares-gaza-hell-plan-to-pile-pressure-on-hamas-reports During the fasting month of Ramadan: “The Israeli government is reportedly planning to ratchet up its blockade on Gaza as part of what it has called a “hell plan” to pressure Hamas into further hostage releases without a troop withdrawal from the Palestinian territory.“ Disgusting and sick state.

I’m guessing you took Zelensky’s words to heart when he said to Trump “But you have a nice ocean and don’t feel now, but you will feel in future”. You’re not on the same continent, I am, and have a sober mind about what’s going on. This kind of rhetoric is catastrophizing a localized territorial conflict in Eastern Europe into some grand ideological battle for civilization itself. Just like Netanyahu does with Hamas and the battle between children of light and darkness slogans. Zelenskys playing the same playbook to get the West to fight his countries war. If Russia really had ambitions of marching through Europe, it would have to first win in Ukraine. After 3 years, despite Western weapons, intelligence, and funding flooding the battlefield, they’ve just about gotten Donbas and nothing beyond it. There’s very little evidence that Russia has the capability or intent to even try such a thing as to attempt taking and then holding onto all of Ukraine. A lot of people are taking Cold War paranoia and turning it into a boogeyman that justifies endless escalation towards WW3.

Perhaps the real information warfare is coming from the Western establishment, waged against its own people. For decades the mainstream narrative was unchallenged because the gatekeepers controlled the flow of information. But with the rise of independent media and social platforms, people started encountering perspectives that clashed with the carefully curated story they had been fed their entire lives. Sometimes it’s not about misinformation but about the same information framed differently. The same facts can be arranged differently to tell a completely different story. The problem isn’t that people are being lied to by Russia, but that they’re being exposed to realities that the Western establishment would rather keep buried. About Russian misinformation fueling the rise of right wing population..the real driver of nationalist movements isn’t some Kremlin psyop - its the policies of globalist elites who have neglected their own people in favour of foreign wars, corporate interests, and ideological crusades. The establishments refusal to prioritize its own citizens is exactly whats making people turn to politicians who at least pretend to care about their needs. The irony is that the more the elites push for endless confrontation with Russia, the more they accelerate this backlash. Just because certain leaders align doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy. Leaders may be influenced but that doesn’t mean controlled. The claim that Russian propaganda is manipulating people into opposing war or questioning the establishment is just a convenient excuse - even it were true, is that a bad thing? lol. Being fed information to make peace with a nuclear superpower.. sounds terrible. People don't need Putin to tell them they're being screwed over by their ruling class. In fact in UK where I’m at, Keir Starmer has come out and said he's ready to put troops on the ground and planes in the skies, and has signed us up for a 100 year partnership Ukraine - with £3 billion of support till 2030 to be continued if necessary. This is in the context of this same government slashing a winter fuel allowance for the elderly, who have to choose between staying warming or staying full. This is on top of a slew of other austerity measures on social services which are already crumbling. People care for Ukraine, but not to the extent where we go cold in the winter, or have to spill the blood of our own people to fight a useless war with no outcome, except to escalate the world towards World 3. The elites are framing this as a Churchill vs Hitler moment, when it's just not the case. And that's the problem, when you misread reality, you can have very severe consequences that could have been avoided altogether. We have access to different information now, which counters the peddling of establishment misinformation at its worst and mischaracterization at its best, which can lead to these disastrous consequences. This is why people are fighting this and voting for politicians who care more for their national interest. If you think the West can deal with Russia with 'force' then why do you think Russia is such a threat to the point of being able to not only take Ukraine but then continue to penetrate into Europe and face the might of the West? Which is it.. is Putin/Russia the threat we are told, or are they weakened and able to be defeated in Ukraine ie forced into a peace? Nice warning Jesus. Just because you are awakened in consciousness doesn't mean you understand geopolitics or the reality and technicalities of warfare. Your spiritual ego is blinding you to the reality on the ground. Your framing of this whole thing as a battle of “democracy vs. dictatorship”, but there’s nothing democratic about how these decisions are being made in our name. NATO countries never got to vote on whether they wanted to be dragged into an open ended security commitment with Ukraine.

Thats true, though they still have a sizeable amount of troops to deploy from. When I say the West don't have the strength to enforce a peace on Russia and ''win'' I mean it in the conventional sense of winning offensively: by taking the war to Russia itself and fighting it in their own sphere of influence. Thats the context I'm talking about. But in a war of defence the West is formidable. This is why I think the Putin as Hitler rhetoric is overblown. Theres no major idealogical driver, incentive, capability or appetite to expand and take Ukraine, let alone Europe. Beyond simply troop numbers the other 5 factors in war are: materials (to build weaponry), labour (to do the building), energy (to fuel the previous two), logistics / geography (to get troops and weapons to the front lines) and the political will (to sustain war). The issue expansionist imperial powers usually run into after satisfying some key elements (troops + weaponry) are geographic and logistical. Russia very well may get through Ukraine with mechanized warfare on flat lands, but the further away the front line gets from home the harder it gets to sustain a solid supply line / logistics. This only gets even tougher once you hit geographic hurdles such as forests, urban centres, hills / mountains and rivers. Hitler ran into the same issues. If we look at a map of what Russia currently holds its not even gotten into middle Ukraine let alone the West. And thats after sizeable losses. The idea that Russia will not just take but hold onto Ukraine in its entirety, and then keep steam rolling further into Europe where there will be major rivers, hills, urban areas, mountains and the military might of the collective West including the resistance of millions - is frankly absurd. What would Russia have to even gain from it? It already has the most resources in the world and has only incidentally got some more now in eastern Ukraine, though that wasn't the primary driver of this war. It's got its Russian speaking regions, access to the sea fortified, and a buffer zone to fortify the Russian heartland if there were to be any Western presence at the border. With an already ageing and now dying (in war) population, there is no appetite to go into a endless, expansionist war with nothing much to gain. Neither Putin nor Russia have the appetite, desire or capability to steam roll their way to Germany for some bratwurst, stopover in France for some baguettes, and hop over to the UK for fish and chips under grey skies and rain. This is just a Cold War hangover the boomer class are still clinging onto individually, that has entrenched itself institutionally in the West. Just saw this: From 1:30 - 3:30 Dugin says that even within Russia there’s a consensus that they don’t have the capability to take large parts of Ukraine or even Eastern Europe. Despite a minority of nutters desiring that. The main thing is a neutral Ukraine and no threat from Western presence close to Russias core.

@puporing What about the fact that Russia outproduces the collective West in tanks, shells and artillery? Or is that not a fact. How are we going to show equal force to Russia..to achieve peace through a “strength” we lack?

Europe has been dwelling in a self-imposed strategic twilight for decades. When you outsource your vigilance to an empire's pitbull for generations, your geopolitical vision atrophies like an unused muscle. The continent that once possessed the sharpest strategic minds has willingly developed diplomatic glaucoma, content to let America scan the horizon while they focused on internal bureaucratic minutiae. This dependency didn't happen by accident. It was cultivated, nurtured, and enforced through a complex system of carrots and sticks – NATO bases, financial entanglements, intelligence sharing that was really intelligence capturing. The arrangement suited the empire perfectly: Europe remained comfortably blind while their resources were redirected, their industries captured, and their sovereignty quietly hollowed out. Europe's strategic myopia is now so advanced that they can't distinguish between their own interests and Washington's commands. They've forgotten how to assess threats independently, how to engage with neighbors directly, how to calculate the true cost of following imperial directives. They've traded their binoculars for a blindfold and called it security. It's time for Europe to reclaim its sight – to dust off those spectacles that have been gathering cobwebs since the end of the Cold War. The continent needs to rediscover its capacity for independent strategic thinking, for seeing beyond the narrow frame the empire has provided. The alternative is continued blindness while being led toward conflicts that serve another's interests. The carrots that once seemed so appealing have revealed themselves as the most expensive meal in history. Meanwhile, the stick is no longer just looming – it's firmly pressed against European backs, driving them toward economic suicide and unnecessary confrontation with their neighbors. True vision requires the courage to open eyes that have grown comfortable in darkness. It requires the willingness to see uncomfortable truths: that treating your largest energy supplier and natural trading partner as an existential enemy might not be the strategic masterstroke it was sold as. That perhaps the greatest threat to European prosperity and security wasn't coming from the East after all. Europe must rebuild its atrophied strategic vision before it's marched blindly into one last, final abyss from which there is no return – all while believing they're walking toward the light.

Cool bro, but do we have equal or greater force? I agree the West should be stronger, but the point is it’s not going to happen quick enough to affect this current war - only to deter a future one.

@puporing Maybe you or anyone else on this forum can answer the question below: Explain to me the path to defeating Russia and what does it look like? The thing with the whole “peace through strength ” slogan is that you have to have strength in the first place. So someone tell me the strengths of the West against Russia in the context of the Ukraine war? I’ll wait forever and am open to changing my mind.

Very true. It's like a trojan horse sneaking in a quasi-security guarantee without outright saying it and putting Russia on high alert. If the US had interests there, they would naturally be invested in Ukraine and want to protect those interests. That's probably the best Ukraine could have asked for at this point. On the other hand I'm sure Russia wouldn't be happy with a heavy US presence on its border due to how the US can just flip when it suits them. There has to be some sort of neutral peace keeping forces (non-Nato/Western), possibly Chinese, African, Latin American. They definitely seem to want to atone for their Nazi past. It's why there seems to be a domestic consensus against militarism. They prefer the stability of being integrated into a Western security umbrella led by NATO and the US. They've been conditioned for submission in order to never be a threat again. Post WW2 Germany was rebuilt under strict US oversight which still exists today. Outside of the US the biggest base is in Germany. They have 35k US troops in Germany - the second largest presence of US troops comparatively is in Italy (12k) and UK (10k). So 3x the amount on German soil which subordinates them to a much larger degree. They've never been allowed to operate as a fully sovereign power. Their political and security apparatus is deeply intertwined with the US - their intelligence agencies, military, and foreign policy are embedded within NATO and US led institutions. When the US says jump, Germany doesn’t even ask if they should, but how high. Their ruling coalition is also influenced by Green Party idealism. They're ideologically corrupted. They shutdown Germany’s last nuclear plants in 2023 - in the middle of a energy crisis and war! How stupid can one be. This is the ideological rot we speak of and much of the right speak of when they critique lefty progressives. They have no sense and saw the war as a tool to force their climate policies through. ''Germany’s hawkish Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock insisted NATO must “stand with Ukraine as long as they need us”, pledging military support “no matter what my German voters think”.

@PurpleTree Whats the strategy against Russia broski? Do you think Europe can take on Russia? If so how, when Russia outproduces not just Europe but Europe + the US in artillery, shells and tanks? The best Europe can do is end the war and regain it strength and autonomy over time. Europe needs to operate like an employee who wants to become an entrepreneur - use the stability of your job whilst building your business on the side. Once the business is doing well, leave the job. The rhetoric I'm seeing about Europe atm about it going at it alone is suicidal. It can't abandon its source of stability (US protection and deterrence) to chart its own course against Russia. That's like leaving a secure job without even having your first customer for your business. Europe should end this war, turn on Russian gas pipelines for cheap energy, and regain power while building something stronger in the background to extricate itself out of both Russian and US dependence. But this current war is lost, that's the reality and red pill most Westerners are refusing to face, at their own peril.

Europe and Israel share the same fundamental delusion - a blindness to reality born from US backing that has allowed them to operate without consequences for decades. Israel at least had some autonomy due to their influence within US, despite them using that autonomy for vile purposes. Outsourcing industry makes you a dependent, but outsourcing your own security and ability to defend yourself makes you a vassal (Israel being a odd exception). That's the issue with Europe. A nation without industry is weakened, but a nation without security is owned. In outsourcing industry you lose wealth, in outsourcing security you lose autonomy. US outsourced labor, but Europe outsourced power. Europe’s blindness to reality is a direct result of its outsourced security, which led to outsourced sovereignty, which led to outsourced thinking and a inability to lead. They aren't comfortable leading because for the longest time they've asked how high to jump, when asked by the US - not whether they should jump in the first place. Beyond that - they have a self-destructive idealism (green policies and throttling their tech industry), performative moral grand standing and lack of dynamism due to entrenched interests and bureaucracy. Basically, cultural and institutional inertia from a boomer class used to and clinging to a old world of comfort that US security provided them, but that blinded them in the process.

Well said. It’s delusion at its best. It’s best to concede now than prolong this war and lose more, not just land but lives. It’s not a simple as throw money at the problem situation - the West have much higher military expenditures yet Russia took a fifth of Ukraine. We can’t print an industrial base or cheap energy to fuel it - these take time to build. US is also disinterested in prolonging the war. The best bet would be for a end, and then for Europe to soul search for its backbone. Europe needs to build its strength and independence in the background so it can hold its own and not need to depend on a United States that wants to focus on domestic issues and China going forward - which didn’t just begin with Trump but started since Obama, Trump is just speed running things. The US simply doesn’t care because it got what it wanted. It successfully severed Europe from affordable Russian energy, mysteriously blew up Nord Stream under suspicious circumstances that mainstream media abandoned investigating, and forced their "allies" to purchase overpriced US gas. They extracted billions more in NATO military spending from their vassal states, gutted EU economic competitiveness – especially Germany's industrial base which relied on cheap Russian energy - and now are extorting Ukraines weak position by exploiting it mineral wealth for US corporate vultures. They posture about the aid given as if their empire hasn’t greatly benefitted from what is actually an imperial investment. Then ask Zelensky to thank them for it. The only objective their game didn’t achieve is to defeat Russia or severely weaken it - though Russia is weaker, but not to the extent they hoped - which is why they are changing strategy to partner with Russia to counter China next.

I don’t think Trumps uniquely bad for world peace, he’s typically bad just as every other president has been, and in his own way. Thing is, if Putin is the super villain threat he’s painted as, then how does making peace with such a man make the world more unsafe? What’s the other option..no negotiation or communication, continuous fighting and war rhetoric against Russia? How does that end? I’ve written above regarding the industrial capacity of the West vs Russia. Please tell me how Russia will be defeated if we lack the same capacity, and how will we match it. Another point is that we are told Russia is on the verge of defeat and weakened, that we just need to send some more support to Ukraine…yet simultaneously, we are told Russia is a threat to not just Ukraine but Europe. How can both those positions be true? We’re made to believe he’s going to get Ukraine and make his way to Paris for a crepe and then hop to London for a cold beer. Zelensky tried pulling this same rhetorical trick at the White House when he said “But you have nice ocean and don't feel now, but you will feel it in the future," meaning a Russian threat, across the Ocean.. lol. That’s the same way Bibi scaremongers the children of the light of the Western world, when he says Hamas will come for them next. Zelensky really blundered there. You don’t talk that way to a superpower not just you, but your continent depends on. He kept interrupting, snarkily saying he hasn’t come to play cards (when Trump said he doesn’t hold the cards - which is true) and being rude. As much as we dislike Trump, you simply cannot act that way, it’s not smart politics.

Taliban weren't fighting a war of attrition, but of endurance against a foreign occupier they simply had to outlast, not outgun as in this case. Insurgency / guerrilla warfare outlasts the enemy by having difficult enough terrain to conquer and hold - making it costly (economically and politically) for the stronger power. Attrition warfare outguns the enemy on less difficult, usually flat terrain characteristic of mechanized warfare - the kind in Ukraine. US was attempting to occupy resistant natives far from home, Russia would be attempting to occupy resistant natives they geographically neighbor, can't escape, and can easily supply the conquering of. Russia isn't going anywhere, whilst the US wasn't even on the same continent. Ukraine can't outlast Russia the same way Taliban outlasted the US - but it would still be difficult and costly for Russia for little gain. Russia currently holds sympathetic Russian speaking regions that don't pose the same difficulty as resistant Ukrainians if they were to move into Ukraine against - which is why I don't think Russia will, and why the boogeyman notion of Russia conquering Europe is fantasy. Ukraine turning from a war of attrition into a blend of attrition / guerrilla warfare with Russia trying to subdue native Ukrainians in their millions would be absurd for Putin to attempt. If Russia already has the Russian speaking regions and a secure buffer to protect the Russian heartland from, why take on an costly and highly unwinnable occupation? It would void the primary reason for this war being the prevention of NATO troops at its borders, that pose a threat to the core of Russia. If Russia’s main goal is to prevent NATO expansion, why would it push itself even closer to NATO by expanding further? That would contradict its own strategic logic. It would also make Russia's position less viable as it moves from a defensive territorial war to a dominating one classified as imperialistic and expansionist - which is categorically wrong no matter who does it. Don't think so. Answered above.