PurpleTree

Latest Ukraine/Russia Thread

1,135 posts in this topic

On 8/6/2025 at 1:18 PM, BlueOak said:

.I also agree that India and China need to be sanctioned heavily at this point, and their efforts to support this proxy war for them halted as much as possible. 
 

Both India and China account for around 3 billion people, more than one-third of humanity. 

The brics nations and partner countries itself comprises more than half the world population while the G7-EU-USA comprises just ten per cent of the world population.

This also does not include non-brics allies of Russia like Saudi Arabia, Egypt Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Bangladesh, Myanmar ,Algeria, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,  Ethiopia, Sudan, and Uganda, Nicaragua , Mali, Central African Republic, and Zimbabwe. Even Pakistan itself has imported over a billion dollars worth of oil from Russia and continues to do so.

Best of luck to those unfortunates who wish to sanction more than half the world and lose half the world market in the process. Lol..

 


Self-awareness is yoga. - Nisargadatta

Awareness is the great non-conceptual perfection. - Dzogchen

Evil is an extreme manifestation of human unconsciousness. - Eckhart Tolle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Also wish to add nato member Turkey who is the largest buyer of Russian refined oil products in the world. Japan and south korea has also imported billions of dollars worth of oil and gas from russia.

And of course, the EU continues to be the gold medallist top buyer of Russian gas and holds the bronze medal or third position for buying of Russian oil even in  2025, adequately financing Russia's war chest more than ukrainian aid , in spite of numerous complaints and chest thumping in public.

Ditto for the US which also continues to import goods from Russia funding the russian war chest with billions each year.

Truly ironic that sworn enemies continue to finance you enough to do your villainous stuff while crying hoarse over the same. :D

Edited by Ajay0

Self-awareness is yoga. - Nisargadatta

Awareness is the great non-conceptual perfection. - Dzogchen

Evil is an extreme manifestation of human unconsciousness. - Eckhart Tolle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ajay0 said:

Also wish to add nato member Turkey who is the largest buyer of Russian refined oil products in the world.

And of course, the EU continues to be the gold medallist top buyer of Russian gas and holds the bronze medal or third position for buying of Russian oil even in  2025, adequately financing Russia's war chest more than ukrainian aid , in spite of numerous complaints and chest thumping in public.

Ditto for the US which also continues to import goods from Russia funding the russian war chest with billions each year.

Truly ironic that sworn enemies continue to finance you enough to do your villainous stuff while crying hoarse over the same. :D

I mean about EU countries. Yea there are Putin guys in the EU like Orban, the Slovakian boi and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2025 at 6:05 PM, Hatfort said:

 The Russian economy's fall is another propaganda talking point, they are doing well, and can sustain this war better than their opponents, and their army is way bigger.

They have been saying of this and the russian military's downfall for over three years now as per western media narratives, losing their own credibility for objectivity in the process.


Self-awareness is yoga. - Nisargadatta

Awareness is the great non-conceptual perfection. - Dzogchen

Evil is an extreme manifestation of human unconsciousness. - Eckhart Tolle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ajay0 said:

They have been saying of this and the russian military's downfall for over three years now as per western media narratives, losing their own credibility for objectivity in the process.

The other side has been saying Ukraine will fall in 4 days and that Ukraine will lose next week or month or whatever. So to me it doesn’t really look like that’s happening either. Every time Russia escalates it leads to Ukraine’s supporters sending more stuff over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

The other side has been saying Ukraine will fall in 4 days and that Ukraine will lose next week or month or whatever. So to me it doesn’t really look like that’s happening either. Every time Russia escalates it leads to Ukraine’s supporters sending more stuff over. 

It seems all sides were quite delusional in this war and now we’re stuck. Remember when Poohtin was shacking and we thought he’s almost a goner. Or when the Russians thought it’s a few days war. Or when Prigozhin marched to Moscow gosh at that time i was in a hostel in Medellin Colombia and i was amped the f uup.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

8 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

Both India and China account for around 3 billion people, more than one-third of humanity. 

The brics nations and partner countries itself comprises more than half the world population while the G7-EU-USA comprises just ten per cent of the world population.

This also does not include non-brics allies of Russia like Saudi Arabia, Egypt Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Bangladesh, Myanmar ,Algeria, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,  Ethiopia, Sudan, and Uganda, Nicaragua , Mali, Central African Republic, and Zimbabwe. Even Pakistan itself has imported over a billion dollars worth of oil from Russia and continues to do so.

Best of luck to those unfortunates who wish to sanction more than half the world and lose half the world market in the process. Lol..

 

 

8 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

They have been saying of this and the russian military's downfall for over three years now as per western media narratives, losing their own credibility for objectivity in the process.


Its a process. You don't fully appreciate, understand or give credit for how interwined these economies were before the war.

However you are speaking propaganda to me in your conclusion.

🔹 Russian Gas Imports

In 2021, Russia supplied ~45% of EU gas.

By 2024, this dropped to ~19%.
Source:
🔗 https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russian-energy-export-disruptions-since-start-ukraine-war-2025-08-15/

Another source showing a drop from 40%+ to around 15% in early 2023:
🔗 https://www.reuters.com/world/three-years-into-war-us-and-europe-keep-billions-trade-with-russia-2025-08-05/

🔹 Russian Oil Imports

EU oil imports from Russia were ~28.7% in 2021.

By early 2025, they had fallen to just ~2%.
Source:
🔗 https://www.reuters.com/world/three-years-into-war-us-and-europe-keep-billions-trade-with-russia-2025-08-05/

🔹 Overall Trade with Russia

EU imports from Russia fell by 86% from early 2022 to early 2025.
Source:
🔗


That's Chat GPT for speed.

8 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

Both India and China account for around 3 billion people, more than one-third of humanity. 

The brics nations and partner countries itself comprises more than half the world population while the G7-EU-USA comprises just ten per cent of the world population.

This also does not include non-brics allies of Russia like Saudi Arabia, Egypt Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Bangladesh, Myanmar ,Algeria, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,  Ethiopia, Sudan, and Uganda, Nicaragua , Mali, Central African Republic, and Zimbabwe. Even Pakistan itself has imported over a billion dollars worth of oil from Russia and continues to do so.

Best of luck to those unfortunates who wish to sanction more than half the world and lose half the world market in the process. Lol..

 


Let me give you an objective conclusion. Whatever Europe doesn't buy others do, but for less (However even china has run out of room or need to store excess oil). So the war has run on far longer than it ever would have in a uni polar world. On your sanctions point, given the population density, actual trade from the US to India is quite low, which is they've already gone ahead with sanctions. This isn't true of China, which why it isn't sanctioned. Also the EU - India and EU - China trade is actually very high.

However the world is split, and sanctions are required. BRICS is trying to outcompete the West, thats their stated goal. Why on earth when we want to work with them? You seem to imply however, that sanctions wouldn't hurt them; in actuality it would hurt everybody. 

Two competing global power blocks is a recipe for competition, conflict and WW3. I think i've said this 5,000 times at this point.

*Also you seem think people can just buy up energy indefinitely, to do what with exactly? The reason Europe and the US buy so much is because their countries are so energy hungry; not many other places are. Oh and the US has an oversized fuel-guzzling, globally polluting military.

Edited by BlueOak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 16/08/2025 at 9:22 AM, BlueOak said:

@zazen
You should look at the granular details; it'll give you a more realistic portrayal of the war, not just dramatic headlines. Russia is slow and steady, Ukraine is stubborn to withdraw to inflict high casualties; this has been the pattern since day one, for the most part. Russia use human wave attacks and technicals (civilian vehicles) because of drones and the damage done to their armour, largely by drones now or previously in years gone by, overextending.

Russia has achieved its goals. Which goals? - Goals (from all sides) change every month in war, to the practical reality of what's possible, for example initially it was to take (retake) Kiev, which failed early on, and Ukraine's was to kick Russia all the way out, which was never going to happen either.

Russia is printing about 20% of its money every few months now (was 15%, now 19% if I recall). Its economy, which is almost completely switched to a wartime footing, is not sustainable, and when the war ends, then what? BRICS has propped it up really well. At the cost of Russian industry becoming Chinese.  Part of this is explained below:

You rightly note Russia’s large industrial base and drone production increasing into a wartime economy. But attritional warfare isn’t just about making more, it’s about preserving enough quality force to win politically. Drones don't really fill that role yet, they are more equivalent to missiles. Russia’s been burning up elite units for marginal gains, and the demographic clock is increasingly not on their side. It’s increasingly using aged conscripts, 50's era armor, and prison battalions, not signs of sustainable strength. -

Yep, Europe is slow to mobilize industrially. But that’s not the same as being incapable. The EU is not a battlefield power; it’s a bureaucracy built to avoid war. Yet under sustained pressure, it can retool, especially if US support contracts (and the US military industries rush to fill the void opening overseas). That’s exactly what’s starting to happen now in France, Germany, and Poland. Have you seen how many companies returned their products to Russia, or Russia just mimicked their brands? They all just changed their name - that happens when the US officially pulls its support back from Europe, people move in to fill the void. Nothing changes when demand is there, only the cost.

Yes the Europeans didn't retool that much, though 5% GDP is no joke over the EU's scale. Ukraine aside, they didn't spend any manpower or weaken their demographics, trade partners or really suffer much at all. Aside from energy prices, which they've gone elsewhere for. Russia has weakened itself to gain a fifth of what it had previously. I'll restate: Europe is a bureaucracy built to avoid war. - I hate people don't realise this. - When I now grudgingly call for the rearming of Europe i understand the historic implications of doing so, thousands of years of expansionist war

Vassalisation

You think the US being the military powerhouse, and Europe sitting back is vassalisation? It certainly costs them their voice with Russia, I'll give you that. Which was always amusing, as potential force should be considered alongside force by a wise mind. I don't need to see force to understand its possible or there.

It's just Europe being geared toward a peaceful life, happy to sit back, live the high life and let someone else take care of security. 

But that's not accurate anymore, this war woke them up. America is clearly trying to pull its influence back, and these countries are spending 5% of their GPD on defense now, which will be used in some form. It won't sit there doing nothing.

To conclude

Russia spent a million casualties on retaking 20% of a country they've controlled 100% via proxy, with ruined settlements and barely any population living there. They've tanked their economy. They've gained stronger BRICS allies, some minerals, some important ports. They've lost much of their youth to death, disability or leaving the country to set up lives elsewhere. Their demographics are worse than ever, much of their economy is chinese and they are more a proxy of China due to reliance on Trade, Chinese investment in Russia and the sheer power of China relative to Russia when not balanced out by European influence or allies.

I liked chat GPT's take here, I won't give you all the points but:
 

- The goal has been to weaken any threat on its Western flank (tactics changing accordingly to the field). Ukraine is weaker now than it was before the war began - including material support from the West which is running low on stockpiles and fragmenting due to domestic politics, economics etc. They’ve gained strategic depth away from Russias core interests and capital (Moscow) whilst securing sea access if the West were to attempt containing Russia via sea. Ukraines industrial heartland being taken now makes them dependent on the West who will have to bleed their own resources (that domestic nationalists are fighting over keeping for themselves) to prop up what is now becoming a rump state. Loss of life on both sides has been brutal but from the Russian side this is seen as existential to them: a sacrifice against a bloc that is hawkish / hostile and looks to contain their country (spelled out in policy documents and think tanks).

A recent Gallup poll shows 69% of Ukrainians wanting an end to the conflict - much higher than before. Fatigue has set in: https://news.gallup.com/poll/693203/ukrainian-support-war-effort-collapses.aspx

- Russia has a cohesive population thats more easily mobilized against a threat they perceive as existential / within a national security logic. Compared to much of a continental Europe who don’t view Russia as threatening to the same degree (geographic distance to the West) and are divided in loyalty due to multi culturalism - many ethnicities don’t want to bleed for a host nation that colonised their ancestors. Even the nationalism that’s arriving is isolationists not expansionist - people are sick of wars that served elite interests while hollowing out the middle class due to financialization. People would rather protest war than confront Russia in a show of “force”.  There’s also no unified command structure across multiple nations with their own foreign policy and military doctrines. NATO has it but that’s lead by US who don’t want to go kinetic against Russia and risk WW3 carnage - which is why buffer states like Ukraine and now the South Caucus are used for plausible deniability whilst continuously pursuing primacy.

Even if the most keen to fight nations combined their fighting age men (Poland and Baltics due to proximity to Russia) Russia still outnumbers them. On the surface Europes manpower is more - but their important details to  account for.

- The demographic and economic woes cuts both ways (Russia’s median age is 42 vs EU’s is 45). Likewise with finances - Russia has one of the lowest debt to GDP’s ratios (20% vs a EU average of 80% with some countries over 100% like UK, Italy, Spain etc) This is why Spain has completely opted out of the new push for defence spending and the others have only just symbolically gestured that they will increase spending but not yet laid out any budget or plans on how to do so and where to cut from. Industry is kneecapped due to higher energy costs - yet they want and need more money to spend on defence and a aging population who’s used to and expecting a welfare system to take care of them: this is going to strain and push things politically to the right and against militarization and war even further.

- Sovereignty exists on a spectrum. I think you overextend things to fit into definitions they don’t belong. Such as Russia being a vassal of China because it happens to do a lot of business with them. Russia hasn’t lost autonomy or sovereignty, and still runs policy independent of that relationship. No doubt trade brings leverage over another - and a globalized world includes trade dependencies: but the type of trade and context matters. Is it being weaponised? Is it critical? China hasn’t (yet) weaponised its trade and Russia still has resource riches and its own military industrial complex.

Military, energy and industry create a strong foundation for sovereignty- which is why the EU lacks it. Just like you mentioned: Europe is a bureaucratic peace project - peace many people are used to and don’t want to disrupt by being hawkish against Russia (counter to their political elite). Peace that meant they could have a welfare state (already struggling) that will now be struggling further because of that hawkish posture with a 5% defence spending aspiration. They outsourced security to the US which made them largely subordinate to the US. It’s designed structurally to be pacifist due to its beuracracy which entails fragmented decision making, internal divisions and contradictions, and no unified military command as I’ve already mentioned. It’s energy dependent and militarily dependent and secured by a US led NATO umbrella.

This is an issue of geology - it simply lacks enough resources to energise itself: which was overcome in the past through colonial expansion that is no longer a possibility. This puts Europe in a difficult position where it needs to fight for its sovereignty and hinge it on external actors. Even overcoming their lack of energy sovereignty through sustainable energy requires dependence on Chinese dominated green tech supplies (batteries, rare earths, solar panels). Clean energy still succumbs to dirty geopolitics - but that doesn’t mean the game needs to be played dirty (country X vassalising country Y because of its asymmetric dependence) ie if China were to abuse this dependence.

- Just because Russia gets some components from China doesn’t make them a vassal,  - by that metric the world is a vassal of Taiwan for supplying critical semi conductors or to China for supplying rare earths. China doesn’t go around telling countries who they can and can’t align with or work with - there’s no strings attached except pay for what is provided. Otherwise it would use its leverage over Pakistan to cut ties with the US and not deal with them. It’s this reason why many countries want to deal with China - because it doesn’t demand political and foreign policy loyalty in exchange for its trade. Meanwhile the Western financial system (SWIFT) is weaponized via sanctions which is a driver of countries wanting a parallel system (BRICS) that can’t unilaterally punish them.

Mexico isn’t a vassal of the US for being the largest trade partner and neither is Japan a vassal of China for being its largest trading partner. Japan has military and political autonomy from China and is clearly an ally of the US in most people’s minds. Meanwhile much of Europes foreign policy and military is tied to US dictates including its only cohesive security umbrella (NATO) which they would be fragmented without.

- Your conclusion says Russia controls Ukraine 100% by proxy - but that’s opposite to the case. It’s because Ukraine was increasingly behaving as a proxy of the West with NATO ascension promises that caused the war we now have. If Ukraine was 100% a proxy of Russia then Russia wouldn’t have sacrificed its million men for a measles 20% of Ukrainian land as you said.

A question to ponder is: What would the UK do if Chinese or Russian military systems were parked up in Wales or Scotland? Even if Russia / China portrayed themselves to be simply defensive in nature - coming with dumplings and vodka in hand. Would and should the UK allow this simply because it’s those countries democratic right?

IMG_7844.jpeg

IMG_7845.jpeg

Edited by zazen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zazen and people who think Russians are truthful or whatever.

Don’t you think arguments like those

”We have to denazify Ukraine”

and

“Ukraine was never fully autonomous it always was part of Russia.”

show that Russians and Putin is lying and just want to expand and fortify their sphere of influence.

The Nazi argument is lame. Russia has many of their own far right nazi type nationalist bois and gangs. Russia supports far right parties in Europe. I think it’s meant to trigger those old fears of when Nazis attacked and decimated Soviets and get Russians to submit/agree and follow the lead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

23 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Let me give you an objective conclusion. Whatever Europe doesn't buy others do, but for less (However even china has run out of room or need to store excess oil). So the war has run on far longer than it ever would have in a uni polar world. On your sanctions point, given the population density, actual trade from the US to India is quite low, which is they've already gone ahead with sanctions. This isn't true of China, which why it isn't sanctioned. Also the EU - India and EU - China trade is actually very high.

However the world is split, and sanctions are required. BRICS is trying to outcompete the West, thats their stated goal. Why on earth when we want to work with them? You seem to imply however, that sanctions wouldn't hurt them; in actuality it would hurt everybody. 

Two competing global power blocks is a recipe for competition, conflict and WW3. I think i've said this 5,000 times at this point.

*Also you seem think people can just buy up energy indefinitely, to do what with exactly? The reason Europe and the US buy so much is because their countries are so energy hungry; not many other places are. Oh and the US has an oversized fuel-guzzling, globally polluting military.

The war was caused by conditions set by a unipolar hegemon not accepting a multi polar reality. Is the world supposed to remain orbiting around the US forever, even as others rise?

The world is split because of sanctions - more so because of the unipolar primacy seeking mentality behind them. Sanctions are required? More like sanctions cause other countries to require alternatives like BRICS that won’t finger wag them if they don’t get into line.

BRICS doesn’t exist to destroy the West. Competition doesn’t mean destroy - and the West are the ones who insist on not cooperating or competing by sanctioning those they see as a threat to them being on top of the competition. Asking why the West should work with BRICS if their trying to compete is the type of zero-sum hegemonic mindset of: if their not under us they must be against us. Schoolyard politics.

Not working with them cements the very split and bipolar world of competing blocs you fear can lead to WW3. Blocs or multiple poles doesn’t mean war - unless one bloc or pole can’t accept the legitimacy or existence of another. Obviously multiple blocs or poles brings with it complexity - but that needs to be managed with new and updated institutions and a security architecture being created (like what Putin mentioned in Alaska) that includes security for Europe also.

What else is the option here? Keep being hawkish with Russia and eventually have Europe go to war with them? Over what.. why not just make a security architecture that acknowledges red lines and benefit from peace and trade as Europe had done in the past with cheap Russian energy.

Regarding Russian energy exports - others buy for less but can buy in higher volume as their growing markets as opposed to stagnant plateauing ones. India has absorbed approx 80% of Europes volume and has huge runway for growing energy demand as its young 1.5billion population urbanises and develops more. Even if it buys at discount - the volume will offset the loss within years.

Chinas building another pipeline (Siberia 2) that would replace half of EU’s gas imports. The remaining gap will be filled through LNG and terminals being invested in and built for processing that LNG.

@PurpleTree Yeah, he’s using narratives that resonate domestically to justify what is at core, a geopolitical red line over NATO expansion and Western encroachment.

I don’t have to believe every Russian talking point that twists half truths into something they’re not. But I can still see the facts on the ground that are a geopolitical reality. Just gotta dismiss the nonsense exaggerated propaganda whilst seeing the principles of security logic that any state would be acting in accordance with regardless of the propaganda they feed their domestic population.

Proud civilizations can’t keep bitching about feeling scared of other nations or civilizations (Western bloc) encroaching on their periphery as it comes across weak. They need some saviour crusader rhetoric overlayed on top of actual security concerns.

 

 

Edited by zazen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, zazen said:

GProud civilizations can’t keep bitching about feeling scared of other nations or civilizations (Western bloc) encroaching on their periphery as it comes across weak. They need some saviour crusader rhetoric overlayed on top of actual security concerns.

You could call it western encroachment. Or you could call it countries like Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia etc. want to move the fuck away from you (Russia, Putin) and closer to Europe because they’re just not that into you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

22 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

You could call it western encroachment. Or you could call it countries like Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia etc. want to move the fuck away from you (Russia, Putin) and closer to Europe because they’re just not that into you.

You could call it Western encroachment or fuck around and find out. What utility to does NATO get from including Georgia and Azerbaijan except antagonising Russia? Maybe what those countries “want” isn’t worth WW3? 

This isn’t geopolitical tinder where a country can swipe right on whoever they wish because democracy voted for it - sure though, they get what they vote for, including the consequences and reality of power politics that the liberal minded like to image they float above.

What about the Gallup poll showing most Ukrainians want an end to the conflict - but that a political elite class in Europe still want to push them to die for? Where’s democracy now?

Euro elites are sounding a lot like neocon hawks - atleast US neocons lived far away from their wars and consequences. Eurocons seem to be retarded enough and ideaologically corrupted enough to push for more war on the same continent they live on.

Edited by zazen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zazen said:

Euro elites are sounding a lot like neocon hawks - atleast US neocons lived far away from their wars. Eurocons seems to be retarted enough and ideaologically corrupted to push for more war on the same continent they live on.

I mean i think Europeans are fumbling without a strategy. Bad leadership. Still they’re in a bad position because Ukrainians ask for help against Russian vile aggression. And there are lots of Ukrainian refugees in Europe. And the US and Russians started this mess. So what should Europeans do? Just station nukes in Ukraine and call it a day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@PurpleTree Should Russia or China station nukes in Mexico and call it a day? lol assuming that’s sarcasm - I commented on your EU thread regarding how they could play the situation.

Like I wrote above - be part of a diplomatic effort to end the war and establish a security architecture that acknowledges red lines. They need to stop being maximalist in their demand - total defeat and fracturing of Russia (as Kaja said). Cut losses now which means conceding some territory - they will resist that because they think that territory can either be taken back or Putin may give it up with pressure (more sanctions).

They don’t realise who has the leverage here - they can’t assess the situation clearly due to ideological blinkers and inertia of their supposed place in the world. The rational is that because you used to be great powers (colonial) and are hinged to a present day superpower (US) you are invincible and can unilaterally dictate terms.

Imagine if the Turkey deal was agreed in March 2022 - which US/UK elites torpedo’d thinking Russia could be bled dry. Since then Western stockpiles have gone down to worrying levels, 100’s of thousands more deaths, some more territory loss, more destabilisation of the Ukrainian economy to where it’s dependent on Western support - support that’s increasingly becoming conditional (EU forced to buy US weapons) or resented by native populations needing those resources for themselves.

Humbling I think is needed - which I think the US is slowly receiving. Between the Red Sea debacle (Houthis) and Iran and Israel’s showdown - they have assessed they need to go to the drawing board and save their resources / find alternatives methods (trade/tech war) of containing larger threats (China) to their primacy.

In just 12 days 25% of US THAAD interceptors were destroyed defending Israel against Irans missiles. What if that continued? Pakistan shooting down a western Rafael jet with a co-made Chinese Jet was also a wake up call as to how things may go down against China. Hegseth even said clearly that US loses to China in a war game scenario every time.

It seems the EU didn’t get the memo and are still parroting US empire logic and talking points (due to inertia) - meanwhile that empire is de-prioritising Ukraine for larger game they know they aren’t ready for but need re-arming for.

On 15/08/2025 at 6:22 PM, zazen said:

Europe needs bold leadership and tact to extricate itself from US vassalization and develop strategic autonomy + start acting in its own interest.

It mainly needs strength and sovereignty in energy, military and industry (tech included). Those form the basis for political/diplomatic sovereignty - without the former the latter have no teeth as their structurally limited and constrained by hard power. Your softness (good hearted values) need the backing of hardness (grounded power in the material world).

Every state or entity has to use its own advantages - for Europe that would be its geographic positioning (not such its geology). It’s connected to the largest landmass on earth connecting it to the rising (already risen) powers of Asia (China) and resource rich Russia and Middle East. It’s also north of Africa with plenty of resources and an ocean away from the US (largest consumer market).

Europe actually benefits greatly from peace and connections it’s already positioned for - rather than a continent of confrontation against Russia. It needs to put itself first before US alignment - and embrace multi-polarity - recognizing and embracing itself as one of those poles rather than being in the shadow of the US.

It should re-engage with Russia (regardless of US dictates) and benefit from cheap energy for its industry, whilst investing in energy connections to North Africa (to diversify), whilst investing in domestic sustainable energy for the long term (to not become so dependent). It should re-shore critical industries (for national security) and go all in on technology which is critical for the world we live in.

On the political front it’s probably best it doesn’t act so brashly and defiantly (speaking openly against US reliance) - but just build quietly in the background to not invite any hostility or US resistance that will try to maintain the status quo (hence I started by saying it will require tactfullness).

 

Edited by zazen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, zazen said:

@PurpleTree Should Russia or China station nukes in Mexico and call it a day? 

 

 

If Americans start to attack Mexico. Bombing them killing many women and Children then yes after that China or Russia should maybe station nukes there to protect Mexicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

47 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

If Americans start to attack Mexico. Bombing them killing many women and Children then yes after that China or Russia should maybe station nukes there to protect Mexicans.

The u.s. is going to start operations in Mexico.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-directs-pentagon-prepare-military-options-drug-cartels/story?id=124481306

 

Edited by Elliott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Sure i know. But yet they haven’t killed tens of thousands of Mexicans. Bombibg cities. Kidnapping children. Or annexed Mexican territory recently. Although they changed the name of the gulf of Mexico. But once Americans really attack Mexico i think it’s totally fair game to station nukes there and deliver weapons etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

Sure i know. But yet they haven’t killed tens of thousands of Mexicans. Bombibg cities. Kidnapping children. Or annexed Mexican territory recently. Although they changed the name of the gulf of Mexico. But once Americans really attack Mexico i think it’s totally fair game to station nukes there and deliver weapons etc.

Seems to me it would be too late then, the u.s. would have annexed Mexico by the time a nuke shows up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@zazen

Premise:

If we take multipolarity seriously, then what you call Russia’s natural push for buffers has an equally natural counterbalance: Europe’s balancing and denial. That’s the security dilemma, not a moral failure or a reason to demonize in your recognition of it. Spheres explain behaviour, they don’t confer rights or vetoes. Again recognising a multipolar world isn’t capitulation; it’s a competitive coexistence (Something i've resisted accepting). In such a system, small states have agency also: Ukraine, Poland or Georgia aren’t just buffer zones, without recognition of that, we have eternal conflict using them as pawns. In a region with clashing ideologies, history and cultural memories over a thousand years of it, friction is predictable; you aren't acknowledging that enough. Yes, the standard should be consent and non-aggression, but not deference to a power’s sphere because you or I favor its position. Europe rearming and backing Ukraine is a predictable and normal balancing response. 

1) Why not just deal with Russia? 

This is dealing with Russia. Its a perfect understandable mirror over cultures and populations that share a long conflicting history, many similar cultural values (in the immediate region), but conflicting ideologies, in a new multipolar dynamic with competing interests. It's like asking why don't Russia just deal with these many countries to its west? Well they are.

@PurpleTreeOn Nukes, yes. I've called for that for years. That's why Putin did it in Belarus. It'll help deter invasion of Belarus in the coming decades. Its exactly what needs to happen to secure that zone of conflict for a few decades.

1A) An addition: Europe still funds Russia. No. You keep posting this in different threads @zazen, so I'll post it here again. The scale has flipped

As I've just sourced this with Chat GPT, i'll just copy paste GPT conclusions:

Quote:

  • Oil: The EU cut Russian crude and products from ~29% of its oil imports in 2021 to ~2% in early-2025. That’s orders-of-magnitude smaller revenue than pre-war.
  • Gas: Russia’s share of EU gas fell from ~45% pre-war to ~15–19% in 2024/25 (mix of pipeline + LNG). Norway and U.S. LNG have largely displaced it. 
  • Total trade: EU goods imports from Russia dropped ~78–86% vs early-2022, even if some flows (nickel, LNG) remain. The direction of travel is clear. Reuters

Yes, India and China absorbed much of the oil, at a discount. That’s why Moscow leaned on a shadow fleet and non-Western insurance. Discounts widened again this month, underscoring Russia’s weaker pricing power. 

End Quote

2) You can’t sanction half the world (BRICS). Power is in chokepoints, not headcounts.

Population is not leveraged. The G7 and EU still dominate finance, shipping insurance, advanced tech, and capital markets. There are focused sanctions targeted at these points, which is easier given the dominance. Chat GPT adds: Even with BRICS expansion, nominal-GDP weight still trails the G7 and is fragmented by divergent interests. (PPP shares look larger but don’t buy chips, tooling, or underwriting.)  I generally liked its take more than mine here, as it brings up some interesting points.

3) Russia’s war economy is fine. Really?

Another stat quote here for speed:
Russia’s defense burden is now 6–7% of GDP; the 2025 deficit was raised to 1.7% of GDP, and the central bank hiked to 21% before easing to 18%—classic overheating control. This isn’t collapse, but it’s expensive and crowding-out.  

To me this is the biggest point of propaganda. In real terms nobody's economy is doing fine. Least of all a country which is printing 15-19% of its money every few months, is propped up by BRICS members buying energy they don't need at a discounted price, and has its refineries (its major export) hit daily. Its country is tooled up to a wartime economy, and it spent 1 million lives, many of which will be carried as a burden one way or the other by the state, both physically and psychologically. Plus how many millions that have fled and won't return, because they have families/lives/good jobs elsewhere now.

4) Manpower doesn't decide a war. Quantity helps, but quality, gear, and politics ultimately decide outcomes

UK MOD and the CSIS list Russian casualties KIA and WIA past 1 million this summer. That's an enormous casualty strain and bill for the country to carry. Maintaining their push requires hard cash, and prison recruiting both of which are dried up. These are signs of strain not a healthy military. 

The kill ratio exceeds the population imbalance you describe. Which is why, almost four years on, this is a very slow front.
 

5) Ukrainians just want a deal. Yes. To a ceasefire, not to capitulation

Quote for speed:
Gallup finds ~69% want a negotiated end “as soon as possible.” But Ukrainian polls also show little willingness to concede territory and strong belief Russia would violate a paper peace. That’s not hawkish elites forcing war; it’s a public that wants peace with security, not a reset to the next invasion. 

6) Georgia and Azerbaijan in NATO is just antagonizing Russia?

Two things here to start: Azerbaijan has never been a realistic NATO candidate in the past; While Georgia has sought a path for years.

Something you struggle with in your analysis are points like this, great power red lines don't erase neighbors agency. The Helsinki Final Act norms are states choose their alignments. Realism matters, but so do rules to govern a multipolar world, or smaller states live at the mercy of spheres of influence, and we end up in eternal conflicts. Leo would tell me they do live at their mercy, then i'd reflect that's the source of eternal conflict, until those states or populations are considered they'll just be pawns to fight or compete over. - Infact that's a realisation i've just had, not doing so is why sphere's of influence live in competition.

7) Europe is pacifist bureaucracy; 5% of GDP talk is fantasy?

Again GPT does stats far better than me:
The EU was slow, but the trend is up: NATO just signaled a new spending envelope (3.5% core + 1.5% broader security); Poland is pushing ~4.7–5%; the UK is moving toward 2.5% (with some leaders floating higher over the 2030s). Industrial capacity (ammo/drones/air defense) is expanding from a low base. It’s not instantaneous, but it is material. 

8) China will replace Europe for Russian gas?

The Power of Siberia-2 still lacks a finalised contract and price; Beijing has kept Moscow waiting to extract terms. Even if built, 50 bcm doesn’t replace pre-war European pipeline volumes. I am trusting the GPT's conclusion on this i'll place sources in the next post.

What should Europe actually do?

Me:

Strong united front to keep their sphere pushing toward Russia, nukes in Ukraine to mimic Belarus, keep pushing back. Until we can start to consider smaller states sovereignty as a globe. Russia isn't developed enough to do so yet. I'm just going to be blunt @zazen you reason from a place that doesn't yet exist. Which is noble and useful to point out better solutions but flawed in practicality.

GPT's strategy and evaluation. Based on my overall analysis.

Short term (war-relevant within months)

Air defense + counter-drone mass for Ukraine; stockpile 155mm/122mm & GMLRS; remove range caveats that hobble interdiction of Russian logistics inside Russia’s border areas supporting active fronts. (Deterrence works when it raises Moscow’s costs faster than it can adapt.)

Close the revenue taps left:

Impose an EU tariff or ban on Russian LNG; stop trans-shipment via EU ports; align with U.S./UK on tighter enforcement of the oil price cap and shipping/insurance secondary sanctions. Reuters+1

Target the shadow fleet and traders blending or relabeling Russian products. (Insurance and port-state control are the leverage.) Le Monde.fr

Use frozen Russian sovereign assets: expand the windfall-profits mechanism into outright collateralization for Ukrainian air defense, power grid repair, and ammo. (The legal path now exists in G7/EU practice.)

Medium term (1–3 years)
4) Munition & propellant bottlenecks: fast-track explosives/propellant (TNT/RDX) plants and drone lines; long-term framework contracts, not one-off grants.
5) Energy resilience: lock in non-Russian LNG/offshore wind/nuclear extensions; diversify grids inter-EU so gas is a swing fuel, not a vulnerability. The U.S. supplied ~50% of EU LNG in 2024—use that bargaining power to secure multi-year volumes while accelerating demand reduction. Reuters
6) Security guarantees for Ukraine that bite: multi-year arms funding; integrated air defense; real-time ISR access; and a clearly signposted path to NATO once basic deterrence is in place—so any ceasefire isn’t just an operational pause for Russia.

Diplomatic lane (in parallel)
7) Test Moscow with a ceasefire-for-verification offer: front-line freeze + intrusive monitoring + phased sanctions relief tied to compliance (no missile/drone attacks, POW exchanges, protected corridors for grain/power repair). Publicly table terms that are enforceable; if the Kremlin balks, Europe wins the narrative without conceding ground.

GPT's Closing Bottom line

Europe hasn’t “kept Russia whole.” Oil revenues from Europe collapsed; gas dependence is way down; the remaining holes (LNG, shadow fleet) can be closed with targeted measures. ReutersBruegelEuropean Commission

Russia can grind forward, but at mounting fiscal and demographic cost—hardly a free ride. SIPRICSIS

Ukrainians want the war to end, but not on terms that invite the next one. Any “architecture” worth the name must reflect that, or it’s just a prelude to Round Two.

 

Edited by BlueOak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sourced by Chat GPT if any are broken let me know, checked several

EU oil/gas dependence & trade with Russia

Eurostat (oil share): https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=EU_trade_with_Russia_-_latest_developments

Reuters (EU gas: 45% → ~19%): https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russian-energy-export-disruptions-since-start-ukraine-war-2025-08-15/

Reuters (EU gas ~19% in 2024; ~13% in 2025): https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/eu-lawmakers-eye-faster-russian-gas-phase-out-documents-show-2025-07-25/

Eurostat (imports down 86% since Q1 2022): https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=EU_trade_with_Russia_-_latest_developments

Reuters (EU trade still exists but far lower; oil share ~2%): https://www.reuters.com/world/three-years-into-war-us-and-europe-keep-billions-trade-with-russia-2025-08-05/

LNG shifts & U.S./Norway replacement

European Commission (US supplied ~45% of EU LNG in 2024; Norway top pipeline): https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/carbon-management-and-fossil-fuels/liquefied-natural-gas_en

Reuters (US share ~44% of EU LNG in 2024): https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/eus-250-billion-per-year-spending-us-energy-is-unrealistic-2025-07-28/

EIA background (US nearly half of Europe’s LNG in 2023): https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61483

EU sanctions on Russian LNG & shadow fleet enforcement

European Commission Q&A (14th sanctions package; bans LNG transshipment via EU ports after 9-month transition): https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_24_3425

EEAS note (same package overview): https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-adopts-14th-package-sanctions-against-russia-its-continued-illegal-war-against-ukraine_en

S&P Global explainer (effect on LNG transshipment): https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/natural-gas/062424-eu-council-formally-adopts-14th-russian-sanctions-package-targeting-lng

Reuters (sanctions targeting shadow fleet tankers): https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shadow-tanker-fleet-grows-more-slowly-western-sanctions-target-russian-oil-2025-08-13/

Reuters (U.S. enforcement fund for “ghost fleet”): https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-bill-creates-fund-enforce-oil-sanctions-russias-ghost-fleet-2025-04-09/

Bank of Finland blog (Urals running ~$15 below Brent on average): https://www.bofbulletin.fi/en/blogs/2025/new-oil-price-cap-adds-to-russia-s-economic-distress/

Power of Siberia-2 (Russia→China gas)

Reuters (talks ongoing; no finalized contract as of May 2025; capacity ~50 bcm): https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/russian-chinese-firms-active-talks-power-siberia-2-gas-pipeline-tass-reports-2025-05-08/

Russia’s macro/war-economy indicators

Reuters (defence spending ~6.3% of GDP in 2025): https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-hikes-national-defence-spending-by-23-2025-2024-09-30/

Reuters (2025 deficit target raised to ~1.7% of GDP): https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/russia-raises-2025-deficit-forecast-threefold-due-low-oil-price-risks-2025-04-30/

Bank of Russia (key rate cut to 18% on July 25, 2025; peaked at 21%): https://www.cbr.ru/eng/press/pr/?file=25072025_133000key_e.htm

Reuters (rate cut coverage): https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/russian-central-bank-slashes-key-rate-by-200-bps-biggest-cut-since-may-2022-2025-07-25/

Losses/casualties estimates

CSIS assessment (toward ~1M Russian casualties by summer 2025): https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-battlefield-woes-ukraine

Reuters citing UK Defence Intelligence (~1M killed/wounded): https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-gates-how-ukraine-defended-strategic-city-months-2025-07-28/

Ukrainian public opinion on ending the war

Gallup (69% favor negotiating an end “as soon as possible”): https://news.gallup.com/poll/693203/ukrainian-support-war-effort-collapses.aspx

Russia Matters roundup of polls (support for negotiations vs. concessions): https://www.russiamatters.org/blog/polls-show-ukrainians-increasingly-want-end-war-not-under-russias-terms

NATO/EU defence-spending trend

Reuters (NATO’s new “5%” framework: 3.5% core + 1.5% broader security): https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/what-is-natos-new-5-defence-spending-target-2025-06-23/

NATO page (context on allies meeting/exceeding 2% in 2025): https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm

Reuters (Poland 4.7% of GDP in 2025; aiming for 5% in 2026): https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/poland-wants-spend-5-gdp-defence-2026-minister-says-2025-04-03/

Reuters (UK to 2.5% by 2027; intent signalled): https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-defence-spending-reach-25-gdp-by-2027-pm-starmer-says-2025-02-25/

International-law principle on alignment choice

OSCE: Helsinki Final Act (text/overview): https://www.osce.org/helsinki-final-act

U.S. Helsinki Commission (PDF of the Act):

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now