zazen

@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.

It’s not just a money issue though bro. We can’t buy an industrial base or print one. There’s not enough production capacity to turn that money into tangible weapons at scale, in a short enough timeframe, to win the current war - whatever winning even means. Re-industrialization won’t happen fast enough to change the outcome of this war - it’s only about future proofing the West for the next war, with whoever and wherever it is. Hitler was defeated by an industrial juggernaut. The US isn’t that today. It’s a financialized empire, designed not for attritional warfare but for power projection and short term shock and awe campaigns using expensive, high tech weapons against weaker nations. Even then, it still can’t neutralize the Houthis in the Red Sea. Attrition is about quantity - mass production of expendable weapons for trench warfare. The West isn’t built for that. The military-industrial complex prioritizes high tech, high profit qualitative weapon sales, not mass production of cheap, effective war materials. To change that means the state controlling capital, rather than the other way around - in other words, not being a corporatocracy. That means flipping the political dynamic the West currently exists in. The real issue is profit maximization vs. state directed production. Corporations will resist any shift that takes power away from the market and redirects it toward less profitable but more strategic war production. A financialized neoliberal economy will struggle to make this pivot because it would mean sacrificing their god: capital. The West will need a political revolution before it can even have an industrial one - the kind needed to win. The question isn’t just whether the West can rebuild its industrial base fast enough, but whether it can even structurally pivot to an existence where it’s possible in the first place. And even then, would there be the political and public will to sustain it. Even the Wests high tech weapons are being neutralized. Russias air defenses counter NATO missiles and stealth aircraft. Their hypersonics - the West has no defence against, as Iran demonstrated in Israel. The Houthis are proving that asymmetric warfare can disrupt trillion-dollar military investments. Russia is outproducing the entire West in artillery, shells, and tanks. Ukraines manpower is collapsing. The West has no public buy in to shift to a full scale war economy. Americans want out. They want America First, cheaper goods, and a better life, not another endless war. Europes multi-ethnic population isn’t going to mobilize for their former colonial masters. Theres no mass movement of people willing to fight and die for Ukraine. TDLR The West doesn’t just lack an industrial base but lacks the system to create one. Its military industrial complex isn’t designed for attrition but for profit. It would need a political revolution before it could have an industrial one. Even if it could rebuild, there’s no public will to sustain it.

Trump’s brand of chaos is different from the establishments brand of war. He's more anti-losing than anti-war. The Western establishment can't admit defeat and are delusional, so they let wars drag on. Trump wants an end, but only if he can take credit for it. Trump saying ''you have no cards left'' is really a admission of the West not having many cards left. He just can't say that part out loud because of the mythos of exceptionalism his base gets a hard on for - including himself. This is why they want to deal with Russia - because they can gain access to cheaper raw materials and energy needed to out-innovate and compete against China, to maintain their primacy. Energy + raw materials + automation = re-industrialization. Europe lacks these ingredients, US has more of them but at a higher noncompetitive cost compared to Russia/China. Which is what they want to remedy via Russia - Russia is a like a treasure chest the US locked Itself out of but now needs. This is why discussions of projects being worked on, and the lifting of sanctions. As for Trump being uniquely bad for world peace, compared to what? Under Biden, no communication occurred with Putin, only escalation. Biden green lighted Ukraine to strike missiles within Russia. They torpedoed a potential peace deal earlier in the war via Boris Johnson, who assured Zelensky of Western support. On another front and flash point for WW3 in the Middle East - Israel was armed and protected to do as it pleased even after crossing the supposed red lines of Rafah. Sure, Trump may not give any red lines for Bibi - but his red line is a diminished ego. That can work if his self image is one of being a ''deal maker'' and ''peace maker'', even if those deals are extractive in the process. Things at least come to a end, but in a shitty way. Trumps like a narc asshole landlord that jacks up the rents for a shitty apartment complex he just bought, and blames the conditions of the the building on the previous landlord to preserve his own image. Trump and his team think they can play 5D chess by befriending Russia to drive a wedge between them and China, in order to counter China. If that fails (most likely) they may in their arrogance ratchet things up and Ukrainize Taiwan against China. There's no way Taiwan sees this spectacle of ''friend treatment'' and thinks, “yeah, if the US wants us to war with China, we’ will.” They know they will be left to dry like a bao bun with no teriyaki sauce.

How does winding up allies with Russia risk WW3? Who is fighting in this war if the major player in it is now on side..Unless the expectation is that a Russia/US alliances goes against China - the chances of which are as low as Trump checking his own ego.

Imagine that energy reserved for Netenyahu. All of a sudden security concerns matter, but they didn’t when Russia warned way back when, for NATO not to inch up to its doorstep. Zelenskyy wants the kind of security guarantees that set this war in motion in the first place. He’s effectively asking for article 5/NATO level privileges, without being part of NATO. This is the US realising the Wests position in this and doing its best to repackage the situation as a win. Trying to maintain an image of strength on the world stage as it loses its status. The US will be a superpower, but it can no longer be a supreme one reigning supreme upon the globe. The reality is: - Russia produces 3 million shells annually, x3 more than US/Europe combined. - They are on par in number of tanks with NATO (including US) except that half of NATO’s tanks are in the US and the rest are scattered far away from Ukraine in other EU countries. Russia is also refurbishing and churning out 1’500 tanks annually now. - They’ve taken 20% of Ukraine, most of the ethnically Russian speaking regions which they can now sit tight on and have much easier holding power vs going further into Ukraine where they’d continuously face insurgencies and native Ukraine resistance (rightly so). - They’ve achieved enough territorial depth to secure the Russian heartland and core (Moscow). - They don’t need to do anything except wait it out in a war of attrition from here on out. The West simply doesn’t have the industrial capacity or cheap energy to play the long game. Even EU hikes in defence spending aren’t going to change the result of this war. Re-industrialisation takes years, if at all possible. Any such thinking that their should be no negotiating with Putin and we should fight fight fight, is delusion. - In a war of attrition, you need things to attrit. The lack of things to attrit is the result of neoliberal policies that prioritized financial gains over industrial strength, hollowing out the middle class while enriching the elites. Financialization transformed economies into casinos, where betting on asset bubbles and speculation became more profitable than producing real goods, building factories, or maintaining self-sufficiency. - The defence spending hikes will only be for future proofing the continent. And it won’t do so conventionally ie cheap labour and fossil fuels. It can’t outproduce Russia / China, it needs to out-innovate. - Breakthroughs in green tech / nuclear to get cheap energy + breakthroughs in automation / AI robotics to replace high labor costs for industrialisation + raw material access from Latin America / Africa where China / Russia already secured supplies from or just have breakthrough in material sciences. The issue as you can see is that the West is getting behind, if not already is behind in some critical areas. Even in ships China has a x200 greater building capacity than the US. AI, drones, hypersonics - ditto. China isn’t even competing with the US, just itself at this point.