Latest Ukraine/Russia Thread

[BlueOak]

@zazen

1) If Russia is suffering so bad economically and militarily I don't see why they would escalate to that level by attacking a NATO country. 

I advocate for a regional focus, but in this context, Zazen you are need a larger one. If BRICS fights NATO, Russia can take Estonia. Because NATO will be busy all over the globe. Nuclear war isn't happening over an invasion. I am not even sure all countries would go to fight either, are you? Can you imagine Hungary going to fight Russia over Estonia? Collectivists need to understand NATO is many voices, and when pressed, they won't always align.

2) China and India couldn't care less about European security. No action they've taken even suggests it. I'm open for you to prove this otherwise with actions, not just words. Authoritarian countries speak through actions; their words are largely meaningless. At the moment, every action they've taken says the exact opposite.

Again - Russia didn't place itself in NATO expansions way, it was the other way round. 

3) Yes it did. After all this you still don't see the other side of this.
Russia project fear, threats and violence. Russia was directly responsible for other countries joining a defensive alliance to resist them.
Just like I can understand a larger power fighting against its decline to a regional power, and using all these tools to try and remake the USSR, or push their influence outward. I also understand that as Russia declines, it loses its sphere. You can't understand that. You think it's entitled to a sphere for its mere existence. No, not if it's too weak to project it relative to its neighbours. 

The EU should recognize its own security interests by dealing with a non-EU member like Ukraine hitting the Druzhba pipeline which provides energy to two EU member states.

4) Your logic doesn't make sense. Europe prosecuting the country directly responsible for ensuring and fighting for their security interests is like some twisted Russia state TV babble. I might as well say BRICS should prosecute Russia for dragging them closer to the brink of war, completely nonsensical when that's how BRICS aligning itself anyway, as a direct competitor to NATO.

This is war zazen. You take out your opponent's economy in war, its been a long time coming. Russia is acting like Germany, which tried to project it had a healthy economy all the way to the end of WW2, when in reality they were broke.

Given BRICS material and manpower support to Russia, the delay in really arming Ukraine to fully win, the only win state here for Europe. if Putin will not negotiate peace, is the destruction of the Russian economy. Otherwise, WW3 is a possibility, and that 'win state' could hardly be called a win for anyone.  - Though what's practically happening is steady economic pressure.
 

Edited Thursday at 06:26 AM by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

Russian dirty bomb threats to the north of Ukraine and Sub threats against a US carrier group.

All tests to see the response. Just like the false flag against Estonia and others, just like the drones into Poland and the Baltics, just like the nuclear threats against everyone, just like the build ups in Kaliningrad. 
 

 

Edited Thursday at 06:18 AM by BlueOak

[Leo Gura]

On 8/26/2025 at 11:13 PM, zazen said:

The fundamental flaw in the logic of liberal internationalism is that whilst rights and principles are better to live by, they don’t erase power dynamics or override security / survival imperatives.

Yes, this is true.

But in the end this is a risk the Ukrainian people chose for themselves. They wanted to turn towards the West. Is there a price to pay for that? Yup.

Putin the like OJ Simpson watching his ex-wife through the bushes. Unfortunately this ends badly for the wife.

Edited Friday at 06:28 AM by Leo Gura

[Daniel Balan]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, this is true.

But in the end this is a risk the Ukrainian people chose for themselves. They wanted to turn towards the West. Is there a price to pay for that? Yup.

The war itself proves that Ukraine choose the correct path. The war itself proves that their decision to ditch Russia to the trash can was the right one. Russia has enslaved the Ukrainian people for the last 300 years. Russia wants a sphere of influence? Then they better learn to behave towards other nations, for that they have waged non stop wars since the cold war, yet they act shocked when Ukraine told them to fuck themselves when the Russians tried for the last 30 years to install puppet governments in Ukraine. Ukrainian people told them that they want nothing to do with Russia. Had Russia been a more sane society, they'd develop themselves so in the future other countries want on their own volition to be their friends, but no, they decided to level to the ground an entire nation just because they don't agree with their pro western values orientation. That's precisely why NATO exists, so that no country is forced to eat the shit Russians are selling. 

And the reason Russia is so afraid of Ukraine joining the western world is because if Ukraine liberalizes and becomes westernised, that will automatically export to Russia and the people of Russia will demand the same for Russia, this meaning the end of the kleptocracy instaurated by the gang of thieves that rule Russia today.

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Daniel Balan said:

The war itself proves that Ukraine choose the correct path.

I don't know about that.

The price for them has been too high.

[Daniel Balan]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't know about that.

The price for them has been too high.

Yes, it is a humanitarian tragedy. But this very tragedy shows how evil Russia truly is, and that it was the correct thing to do to dare to exit from its sphere of influence. After all if the massacre happening in Ukraine is what Russia is offering, it is the right thing to do to align with the west and ditch the friendship with Russia for good. 

Also the justifications and the framing done by Russians is disgusting, calling Ukraine a nazi state. This is ludicrous. By all historical accounts Russia is the one behaving like Nazi Germany, not Ukraine. The war made Ukraine very nationalistic, which is expected when a neighbouring Russia wants to make Ukraine their colony the same way the Ottomans did with Eastern Europe. 

[Daniel Balan]

Also those Russians want not only Ukraine but all of eastern Europe as their sphere of influence, in the name of a multi polar world. 

I'm so glad NATO expanded after the cold war, I'm so glad I'm part of the EU. Before the EU you couldn't open a little shop here, because you'd have to pay protection taxes to various mafia gangs or they'd destroy your shop. This is the model of governance that comes along with the Russian sphere of influence. Before the EU if you wanted a piece of propery that was owned by a poor farmer, you'd just bribe the ones in charge with the property deeds and the mayors and his underlings would expropriate that poor farmer if you had enough money to bribe the local authorities and if the farmer had no political rich friends. This is what the Russians are selling to the countries in their spheres of influence. Had my country been under Russian influence right now, I wouldn't even have access to Youtube and this forum, and I'd be paid 10$/day to shovel shit 24/7 at some rich Romanian oligarc farm that sucks Russian dick to have this power here locally.

Why would anyone want to be enslaved by the Russian way of doing things just for Multi Polarity? Fuck multi polarity, fuck Russia, and fuck anyone who supports and justifies what Russia is doing in Ukriane. Anyone who is sided with Russia in this conflict is a shameless, corrupt, evil devil who needs to move to Russia to feel on their own skin what the Russian system looks like. 

 

[Daniel Balan]

I see in my country only the most corrupt devils that look with admiration towards Russia, those people are always complaining that they hate that the actual government force them to pay the minimum wage for their employees. 

Imagine being such a devil that you don't even want to pay 500€ a month to a human that works from dawn till dusk for you. Those devils want to pay their workers 150€ a month the same way it was before the EU. 

Only the people that could no longer enslave their workers they way they did before the EU, want my country back in the Russian sphere of influence. This is the reason why the west expanded eastwards. To modernize and to bring development to eastern Europe. If Russia wants a sphere of influence they should move to another planet to find one, because here on earth no one deserves to be a slave all their life for the ones that suck Russian cock for power.

[Ajay0]

From a military point of view, Nato can only expand eastwards to the very borders of Russia if it has created technological assymetry enough to dodge russian nuclear weapon attacks through ICBMS, nuclear submarines and aircraft.

If it has this sort of technological assymetry then nato can protect its european and american population in case of a worse case scenario of nuclear war and holocaust.

If they have not attained this sort of technological assymetry, they should not have taken this dangerous gamble. Their first priority should be the protection of the western population who paid their taxes to protect them from annihilation, not subject themselves to the same.

Edited Friday at 08:22 AM by Ajay0

[Daniel Balan]

1 hour ago, Ajay0 said:

From a military point of view, Nato can only expand eastwards to the very borders of Russia if it has created technological assymetry enough to dodge russian nuclear weapon attacks through ICBMS, nuclear submarines and aircraft.

If it has this sort of technological assymetry then nato can protect its european and american population in case of a worse case scenario of nuclear war and holocaust.

If they have not attained this sort of technological assymetry, they should not have taken this dangerous gamble. Their first priority should be the protection of the western population who paid their taxes to protect them from annihilation, not subject themselves to the same.

If Russia was a sane nation, it would ally with the western world, by doing so the whole country will be improved in all aspects from infrastructure to the economy, to the quality of life and to the reduction of poverty. Most Russians live in extreme poverty, especially in rural areas. Russia is part of Europe and it would be wise to join the EU and NATO. But unfortunately we don't live in fantasy land and that won't happen for the next 100 years. 

[Ajay0]

1 hour ago, Daniel Balan said:

If Russia was a sane nation, it would ally with the western world, by doing so the whole country will be improved in all aspects from infrastructure to the economy, to the quality of life and to the reduction of poverty. Most Russians live in extreme poverty, especially in rural areas. Russia is part of Europe and it would be wise to join the EU and NATO. But unfortunately we don't live in fantasy land and that won't happen for the next 100 years. 

The west has an ageing population marked with low fertility rates and a fast increasing immigrant population from Latin america, Asia and Africa to make up for manpower shortages. 

The US and european countries have huge debts in the trillions spectrum which the russians do not have.

All that glitter and glamour of western civilization is only on the outside. It's all style without any substance. 

This is why the two world wars originated in europe killing over a hundred million people , and they are on the verge of the third world war as well.

If they are sane, they would discard their military alliances, which is the root cause of all their troubles ,and live mindfully and consciously without being deluded by paranoia and baseless psychological insecurities.

 

Edited Friday at 11:46 AM by Ajay0

[Elliott]

If Russia allied with the west, Western Imperlialism would take off again. Thank God, egomaniacs kill each other.

Edited Friday at 12:03 PM by Elliott

[BlueOak]

2 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

The west has an ageing population marked with low fertility rates and a fast increasing immigrant population from Latin america, Asia and Africa to make up for manpower shortages. 

The US and european countries have huge debts in the trillions spectrum which the russians do not have.

All that glitter and glamour of western civilization is only on the outside. It's all style without any substance. 

This is why the two world wars originated in europe killing over a hundred million people , and they are on the verge of the third world war as well.

If they are sane, they would discard their military alliances, which is the root cause of all their troubles ,and live mindfully and consciously without being deluded by paranoia and baseless psychological insecurities.

 

Discard their military alliances with Russia on the border?

Given the history that is utter delusion. Especially with how they treat their own citizens in the modern day, let alone their subject countries.

Even before the war Russia had a host of other problems, such as terrible demographics, dwindling military power compared to its rivals, an infrastructure it couldn't afford to maintain, and a border that was too big to guard. Also, a disconnect from where they practically were in the global realignment happening. That and democracy catching on nearby.

And as for your subtance quote, we were living quite happily thank you for decades, and didn't need your judgement on how to run our own countries. Your utter inability to see a world war is not 'they' - 'them' it's US, its THE WORLD, is still blinding you to finding a common ground or solution. You are so focused on the bad guys and the good guys you'll never be able to.

Edited Friday at 01:47 PM by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

As people are still disconnected from how the war is being fought. Warning: This is not graphic, as its on YouTube, but may be disturbing to some.

Russia is using human wave tactics or tactical vehicles (cars/trucks/bikes) because drones are greater than tanks or armor of any kind and have taken out so many, they are a cheap low risk way to fight. This is a large part of the war: people in bunkers or at a distance using drones to hit targets, a bit like artillery, only more precise. These days it's on the individual soldier level.

*Skip the second half though there isn't much there.
 

Here is another one, a couple of the same clips but largely showing different ones.

Edited Friday at 02:07 PM by BlueOak

[zazen]

On 28/08/2025 at 7:10 AM, BlueOak said:

@zazen

1) If Russia is suffering so bad economically and militarily I don't see why they would escalate to that level by attacking a NATO country. 

I advocate for a regional focus, but in this context, Zazen you are need a larger one. If BRICS fights NATO, Russia can take Estonia. Because NATO will be busy all over the globe. Nuclear war isn't happening over an invasion. I am not even sure all countries would go to fight either, are you? Can you imagine Hungary going to fight Russia over Estonia? Collectivists need to understand NATO is many voices, and when pressed, they won't always align.

2) China and India couldn't care less about European security. No action they've taken even suggests it. I'm open for you to prove this otherwise with actions, not just words. Authoritarian countries speak through actions; their words are largely meaningless. At the moment, every action they've taken says the exact opposite.

Again - Russia didn't place itself in NATO expansions way, it was the other way round. 

3) Yes it did. After all this you still don't see the other side of this.
Russia project fear, threats and violence. Russia was directly responsible for other countries joining a defensive alliance to resist them.
Just like I can understand a larger power fighting against its decline to a regional power, and using all these tools to try and remake the USSR, or push their influence outward. I also understand that as Russia declines, it loses its sphere. You can't understand that. You think it's entitled to a sphere for its mere existence. No, not if it's too weak to project it relative to its neighbours. 

The EU should recognize its own security interests by dealing with a non-EU member like Ukraine hitting the Druzhba pipeline which provides energy to two EU member states.

4) Your logic doesn't make sense. Europe prosecuting the country directly responsible for ensuring and fighting for their security interests is like some twisted Russia state TV babble. I might as well say BRICS should prosecute Russia for dragging them closer to the brink of war, completely nonsensical when that's how BRICS aligning itself anyway, as a direct competitor to NATO.

This is war zazen. You take out your opponent's economy in war, its been a long time coming. Russia is acting like Germany, which tried to project it had a healthy economy all the way to the end of WW2, when in reality they were broke.

Given BRICS material and manpower support to Russia, the delay in really arming Ukraine to fully win, the only win state here for Europe. if Putin will not negotiate peace, is the destruction of the Russian economy. Otherwise, WW3 is a possibility, and that 'win state' could hardly be called a win for anyone.  - Though what's practically happening is steady economic pressure.
 

1. On Russia invading Estonia 

If you keep saying Russia is suffering militarily and economically, why attack a NATO country to compound that suffering? What do they have to gain? You think that because you base their motivation on imperial expansion and territory rather than security. But admitting it’s mainly security driven goes against your entire framing of it.

Russia already is supported by BRICS trade and still hasn’t taken all of Ukraine. Fearing them invading not only another nation but a NATO one is overblown imo.

Your point about NATO’s divisions proves mine: it’s precisely why it’s reckless for the West to provoke Russia instead of negotiating a security framework that acknowledges red lines and buffer zones. But the imperial uni-polar mindset can’t acknowledge any other powers red lines.

2. On China, India, and security

You say China and India don’t care about European security. Of course not - why should they? The US doesn’t care about their security either. Countries are supposed to prioritize their own. What they do largely care about is a fairer global order.

That’s why they refuse Western sanctions, keep buying Russian energy, and are building an alternative: to not get caught by a Western block that unilaterally punishes countries for not toeing the line. That’s the action they are taking.

Fair enough to try economically severe the rival country. But extending that to secondary sanctions is precisely why countries seek out of that system - similar to the non aligned movement of the past, they’d rather not get involved and avoid being punished for trade.

That guy who said this is Modi’s war recently - lol. If business links equal warmongering, then by that logic every country in the world should be at war with eachother for supporting the US’s constant wars. Countries using the US dollar as the default currency, including holding reserves -is what allows the US the exorbitant privilege to imperially bully and destroy entire regions, making the whole world complicit and guilty by association.

3. On “Russia caused NATO expansion”

For sure the USSR was a threat. But the West is still trapped in Cold War thinking, treating Russia like the same entity when it’s not. NATO wasn’t created to camp on Russia’s border - it was built to contain the Soviet Union and protect Atlantic states. Now it’s all the way in Russia’s backyard, arming and training Ukraine into de facto NATO interoperability.

Russia isn’t entitled. Entitlement means assuming a right to dominate beyond necessity, geography or survival. That’s what the US sphere is: global web of bases, financial control, and military reach justified by a sense of universal entitlement. Russia isn’t projecting outward like that. Its sphere isn’t based on some cosmic right to reorder the world - it’s a buffer zone rooted in geography and historical invasions.

Are you saying that if you have the strength to project and maintain a sphere you should? And that Russia isn’t entitled to this anymore because it’s weak?

NATO is nothing but a US umbrella that lords its sphere over an entire continent (Europe) an ocean away, and now it’s trying to extend into Russia’s immediate border area. Whose in who’s backyard here? It’s the uni-polar mindset that is entitled to the entire world as its sphere and unable to acknowledge that it has to share space with other powers in the world.

At the end of the day, this war is about spheres colliding - one more natural in its geographic place and another overextending itself.  If Russia really is “too weak” to hold one, then that will show on the battlefield. But pretending they never had legitimate security concerns just blinds the West into miscalculating again and again - including many who misdiagnose the crux of this war.

4. On “destroying Russia’s economy” to win

Sure, war is war and it gets dirty. Ukraine should be aware that Hungary provides most of its electricity then, and is a EU member that hurting will only further fracturing EU-NATO with internal divisions.

Sanctions and economic warfare don’t exist in a vacuum. They’ve forced Russia deeper into BRICS trade, accelerated de-dollarization, and hardened parallel financial systems. The result isn’t Russia’s isolation - it’s the West isolating itself from a majority of the world that isn’t playing along.

Unlike Germany in WW2, Russia isn’t blockaded entirely. Europe meanwhile is bleeding financially to keep Ukraine afloat while undercutting its own competitiveness with high energy costs. So destroying Russia’s economy risks destroying Europe’s leverage at the same time.

Just see the recent news on UK and France’s economic crisis - not to mention Germany already in one to the point Merz got real with the public in mentioning they need to cut welfare. These are the 3 biggest economies and supposed funders of this grand plan to defeat Russia. Like I’ve said before - with what arms, funds and manpower will this plan be executed. If Western establishment news is a trusted source then on all fronts it isn’t looking too good.

5. On “my logic not making sense” 

I think your emotionally framing the war as: a weak, irrelevant but still imperial minded Russia lashing out for its place in the world, that must be punished into its rightful place.

I’m framing it structurally as: a US led Western world order, Trojan horsing itself through NATO expansion and colliding with Russia’s security logic - producing a shitty war of attrition for both sides.

The West insists on dividing the world into a “with us or against us” bloc just like the Cold War. Its behaviour and thinking is outdated for a multipolar world.  The Western empire is just running on inertia and false assumptions about its place in the world - that it can unilaterally dictate to the world and they will follow suit.

The West can either chase Russia’s destruction (risking endless escalation), or accept a settlement that acknowledges the fact that other powers exist and have red lines. Part of that settlement will involve settling into the idea that they no can longer lord it over the world.

What’s on the menu is either a humble pie, or Europe - whose political elites seem willing to serve up their own societies as the sacrifice rather than admit the unipolar order is over.

Edited Friday at 06:48 PM by zazen

[BlueOak]

1, On Estonia

I've told you so many times why Russia has a possibility of attacking the Baltics or Poland, why it would benefit them and how now they can do it. i'll just be repeating myself @zazen, you can't or won't see it in your framing. I'll add the video showing how close we are to war. Maybe that'll bypass the hundred reasons I keep listing and the vast potential power of BRICS, to just show the state of the world. – Potential power is power in geopolitics.

2, India, China and BRICS

Thank you for admitting China and India don't consider European security. Europe and the US did consider India's security because they considered it more of an ally. Anything goes against India in a war state. I've seen 'oh poor innocent india' spoken or written many times; they are making their choice strategically.

You are championing BRICS messing around domestically in their competitors' countries politically, causing social unrest, fighting land wars and trade wars. And calling this acceptable as it's been done before the opposite way, then getting confused when the same is returned.

It'd like me being confused as to why BRICS formed or decided to compete with the West, its not hard to work out or see. I think it's an idiotic move of old dictators to force land wars when their economic positions are improving so rapidly relative to their competitors, but I understand it, and the desire to project power over others when you have it, which resides in many men's minds. – You’ll counter this with an understandable security argument and I’ll either say spheres move until they are stopped, OR just point again to hundreds of years of history.

3, We are literally in a cold war zazen. Literally.

I don't think you are aware that almost every war the US fought was against regimes backed, funded, armed and trained by Russia (or China). Of course Russia pushes its influence way past its borders; it was the second biggest arms dealer on the planet and the direct competitor for the US, its been highly active in shaping the Middle East and Africa. They just don't blare it on their media, or overplay their hand, sounded to trumpets like some patriotic diatribe, which the US did in the 1960s - 2000's

You refuse to acknowledge Europe has a sphere, and as a block is far stronger than Russia is. I'd put Poland against Russia, but backed up by Germany, France, the UK etc, forget it. Russia is far weaker. That’s the regional realignment; just like BRICS is able to push the US’s influence back, Europe does the same to Russia. The US supplies the weapons, but it's Europe and Russia that were directly engaged against each other for centuries (like all great powers till they aligned in Europe). You might not like this, but that is the dynamic in countries that require spheres, a trade empire or prioritize land gain in their foreign policy.

NATO is a large defensive alliance. You have a personal bias on this subject that clouds any conversation, both in its decision making but also strength: Its GDP without the USA far dwarfs Russia, and is comparable with China, more with other potential allies in the region like the UK or Turkey. Potential power is power in geopolitics, not seeing this was a failing of the west looking at Russia in this recent war. Why everyone wants Europe to remilitarize directly to consider its perspective is beyond me. Nobody takes history seriously, because Europe's remilitarizing concerns the hell out of me. I guess power needs to be demonstrated to be seen, which is what BRICS also concluded.

4, Russia and the EU were intertwined.

Less so now, but I agree it's a mutual recession, and necessary to show everyone the interconnected nature of the world to counter this nationalist trend, but it's a necessity because of BRICS supporting Russia's aggression, and nobody wants a direct shooting match, although that possibility is getting closer.

Russia is fully in BRICS yes. There is no going back for decades to meaningful trade with Europe. What you haven’t considered is there are other markets, and they are now getting the investment. India was but its shot itself in the foot also. To accept that, you’d need to accept both perspectives!

The reason the pressure has slowly been turned up rather than completely obliterate the country's factories, oil etc. Is twofold, one not to cause unnecessary pain to Europe's own countries, and two to not draw such a shock reaction from Russia as it is hollowed out from the inside out.

Hungary is already aligned with Russia, on the Ukraine issue specifically, it makes little odds what happens to them in their decision making. Removing Russian influence on their economy will take them decades before they align more with the EU.

5, Perspectives have to shift to reach a compromise; zero sum thinking needs to be transcended. 

Exactly, you can only posit one perspective, done in great depth and detail, but all your conclusions are half answers. It's structural, but for one side.

I can 100% see, understand and appreciate your perspective. If you were advocating that Russians were monsters, and BRICS were merely aggressive warmongers, I’d be giving you a different perspective.

I will restate my exact framing of this situation:

Given their economic, technological and population growth rate, BRICS are engaging in unnecessary land wars and aggressive expansion for short-term advancements, which is destabilising the world. They have old territorial ideals and an inability to consider the sovereignty of smaller nations. - As an alliance, they were and can achieve all their objectives without firing a shot, if they are able to objectively analyse the state of the world.

There we go: If this were instead a gradual realignment, none of this conversation would be happening. Because everyone would still be asleep.

If China weren’t obsessed with a 1000-year-old map, none of this would be happening. They have a gigantic and powerful country already, but just like the US they are pushing this influence outward, whatever their method of doing so.

If Russia just decided oh look we have the biggest country on the planet, we actually don’t need a 0.01% territorial gain to improve our station in life, this would not be happening either. Putting a buffer around a country that large is just impractical to enforce.

But that’s not how BRICS thinks. More is better. They are stuck in an old 80s American mindset, only for them its towards territory. I know there are 500 other reasons, we keep listing them, which is why it's odd you can’t see why Russia would invade Estonia. You argue that the EU should just accept X, well why the heck can’t you turn that mirror back on the side you’ve embraced, on the things causing the hot part of this war? Not the overall struggle, but the part that’s killing people. Because doing that would mean you’d have to adapt the structure you’ve built up, to include the full reality on the ground, not what you like or don’t like.

I don’t like Russia, at all. I hate authoritarians, but it doesn’t factor into my analysis of a country's place in the world. – Below is exactly how authoritarians think.

If this were China on this border, I’d be telling you Europe would have a hell of a time, and the buffer state would naturally be in Poland. They are roughly 9 times stronger in GPD than Russia, they lead a large economic block, they have ten times the population. This is not China; this is a tenth of China.

Would I like people to break out of this authoritarian, zero sum mindset? Hell yes. But they have not done, so that's why I am framing it this way. if it were my way, we'd have a global government and regional councils.

Edited Saturday at 02:42 PM by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

Germany has officially declared they are in conflict with Russia. I think the drone hitting their territory was the last straw to publicly deny it.
 

So whatever you think the reasons for or against are, whichever side you've decided to embrace:

The reality is Germany is in conflict with Russia. I'd describe it as a cold war, but that's my perspective.

[Ajay0]

17 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Discard their military alliances with Russia on the border? Given the history that is utter delusion.

It was the western military alliances with Russia against Napoleon and Hitler that enabled their defeat.  So it is not that delusional. 

Quote

Even before the war Russia had a host of other problems, such as terrible demographics, dwindling military power compared to its rivals, an infrastructure it couldn't afford to maintain, and a border that was too big to guard. Also, a disconnect from where they practically were in the global realignment happening. 

If you admit that Russia is such a dwindling power, don't you think nato expansion to the borders of russia are indeed based on paranoia and baseless psychological insecurities. How can a weak power invade the rest of europe ?By hyping the russian boogeyman, as per intellectuals like Chomsky and Hedges, western military industrial complex wanted to breath new life into the irrevalent nato, make it relevant again and ensure optimal weapons sales and profits for the military industrial complex capitalists.

This is all there is to it, and expendable military fodder belonging to the western middle/lower classes will be used to fuel the war for the necessary time required to ensure optimal pofits.

[BlueOak]

5 minutes ago, Ajay0 said:

It was the western military alliances with Russia against Napoleon and Hitler that enabled their defeat.  So it is not that delusional. 

If you admit that Russia is such a dwindling power, don't you think nato expansion to the borders of russia are indeed based on paranoia and baseless psychological insecurities. How can a weak power invade the rest of europe ?By hyping the russian boogeyman, as per intellectuals like Chomsky and Hedges, western military industrial complex wanted to breath new life into the irrevalent nato, make it relevant again and ensure optimal weapons sales and profits for the military industrial complex capitalists.

This is all there is to it, and expendable military fodder belonging to the western middle/lower classes will be used to fuel the war for the necessary time required to ensure optimal pofits.

Yes, European Powers Ally together against expansionist European powers. its happened for hundreds of years, more, it's happening now against Russia. It's a familiar pattern that requires understanding that each country in Europe, no matter the size, has its sovereignty and culture not only respected but celebrated. None are seen as a buffer states from a European perspective, not willingly anyway.

BRICS. Of course, everyone's going to milk the war to their advantage, individuals and countries. But BRICS vs NATO allows Russia to attack NATO in smaller theatres or collectively as a whole. They could overwhelm a small country like Estonia, which only has about 7,500 active service members, and then just dig in. Sure Estonia can call on reserves if they get warning. Russia may even cut the Suwałki Gap and thus encircle the Baltic, which is harder as Poland is no pushover, but the distance to Kaliningrad is not far, and it can be attacked from two directions.

Part of it is that you can only fit so many people inside a small area. There is a battlefield term called "unit capacity," which effectively means only so many NATO forces can fit in a small area, and tactical nukes could be used to just wipe them. Tactical nukes are tiny in comparison and designed to take out clusters of units. Its one consideration as to why Russia's drones are probing into the center of Europe, to see NATO's force groupings and hit them at the start of the war.

 

Edited Saturday at 07:14 AM by BlueOak

[Ajay0]

11 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Yes, European Powers Ally together against expansionist European powers. its happened for hundreds of years, more, it's happening now against Russia. It's a familiar pattern that requires understanding that each country in Europe, no matter the size, has its sovereignty and culture not only respected but celebrated. None are seen as buffer states from a European perspective, not willingly anyway.

So essentially this is a european war disturbing the peace of the world just like the earlier two world wars which originated in europe and killed a hundred million people.

Russia was a friend in the past many times, though it is an enemy now, and might become a friend in the future especially due to its vast resources of oil and rare earth minerals. And then it can become an enemy again, and after wards a friend again.

Germany, the villain in the past two world wars is a great friend and 'good guy' now.

Why do europeans keep fighting and killing each other regressing themselves in the process instead of making friends and progress.  Is it something genetic or something !

Edited Saturday at 07:20 AM by Ajay0