Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

WPMUFC said:
Macron taking the matter actually seriously. I've loved his switch in rhetoric on this. We have an imperialist nut-case on the move again in Europe. PUTIN WANTS LAND AND RESOURCES. How many times does this have to be said?

All these people saying "just give him Ukraine" or "Ukraine has to give up and come to the table", have you never opened a fecking text book? The only difference this time is the fascist imperialist has nukes and seems happy to threaten their use unless he gets to recreate the Russian Empire.

I don't know why the west is still so slow here. Give every country that wants it membership in NATO, bring back full scale European military industrial production. Tax people more to fund it. The dithering is pathetic.
Click to expand...

You are right. Unfortunately, we have pathetic leaders. Scholz and Biden would both be good leaders in normal times, when nothing really happens and they could just concentrate on internal economic growth and social measures. Unfortunately, against expansionist dictators like Putin we need someone more hard-core, like Churchill, someone that would make Putin worry.

Actually, if we had such a leader in the past 20 years (instead of useless "leaders" like Obama and Trump and Merkel), Putin would not have invaded Ukraine in the first place, and thousands of people would not have died and millions of Ukrainians wouldn't have lost their homes. Avoiding conflict against dictators is usually not a good idea, history has shown that multiple times ... but we don't learn.
 
I am ashamed of this pope. He is as pro Russian as he can be
 
VorZakone said:
And if Russia hits European troops with air strikes?
Click to expand...

That just becomes a lose-lose situation for Putin. There would be a response depending which countries troops was hit obviously. Most likely in the form of increased support/supplies. It may very well force European countries over the line that we all want them to cross, from half-assed help to actual dedication in Ukraine winning the war.

A direct military response would involve a strike on Russian forces within Ukraine, may as well let Ukraine do that with new toys without the extra geo-political pain, but I suppose it would send a stronger message to do it directly. What's Putin going to do then? Continue hitting European troops? All his remaining goals in Ukraine shatter overnight if he escalates it to exchanging fire with European forces, and that's even if the US sits back.

Sure he'd pile on the nuclear rhetoric, but as long as it all stays contained within Ukraine no one is taking him too seriously with it. Maybe there's an angle where escalating with other European countries is actually his goal, I can't think of much rational behind that though.
 
VorZakone said:
Yeah, this sounds like fantasy to me. I highly doubt European nations are willing to risk war with Russia.
Click to expand...

Its an unlikely scenario that was probably fanned by Macron's recent comments. But one could just as well make a credible argument that not engaging with Russia now would only delay the inevitable war after Putin takes over all of Ukraine.
 
Raoul said:
Its an unlikely scenario that was probably fanned by Macron's recent comments. But one could just as well make a credible argument that not engaging with Russia now would only delay the inevitable war after Putin takes over all of Ukraine.
Click to expand...

That"inevitable war" with NATO or the EU more or less equals a suicide run for Putin at that point. Keep the Russian war machine occupied and taking heavy losses, while simultaneously rearming the EU and NATO is the best strategy for long term stability in Europe. Countries need time to catch up militarily, to sort out the energy shortage that followed the Russian invasion and stabilise the economy.

Europe benefits from providing Ukraine with the means to fight Russia, which gives them time to rearm and delays the Russian war machine's growth, but if they comit troops popular support for Ukraine will plummet. No one is going to be happy about losing soldiers in a long and dragged out war. The number of soldiers doesn't matter here, for NATO to make a dent they have to involve some pretty heavy arms in addition to troops which changes the calculus of the war. Victory right now is an end to hostilities in Ukraine and continued Ukrainian independence, with NATO involved it becomes a case of Moscow asking "how far into Russia could they go".
 
Raoul said:
Its an unlikely scenario that was probably fanned by Macron's recent comments. But one could just as well make a credible argument that not engaging with Russia now would only delay the inevitable war after Putin takes over all of Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Why would war be inevitable? Even with a Trump presidency, I don't see Russia trying to attack NATO. Russia will likely continue all sorts of hybrid tactics to divide Western countries and we should counter that. But I don't expect war.
 
VorZakone said:
Why would war be inevitable? Even with a Trump presidency, I don't see Russia trying to attack NATO. Russia will likely continue all sorts of hybrid tactics to divide Western countries and we should counter that. But I don't expect war.
Click to expand...

If the EU isn't united and strong enough and the US doesn't look likely to honour a call for article 5, Putin might think that certain countries in Europe would follow the US example and not answer the call, and risk it.

It's an unlikely scenario, but I know that is the scenario defence ministries across Europe are considering right now.
 
VorZakone said:
Why would war be inevitable? Even with a Trump presidency, I don't see Russia trying to attack NATO. Russia will likely continue all sorts of hybrid tactics to divide Western countries and we should counter that. But I don't expect war.
Click to expand...

Because Putin's objective is to expand. He's not going to just get Ukraine and not use it as a foundation from which to pursue other conquests. Not that I think he will actually take over Ukraine since the population would continue fighting him even if he takes over more land.
 
Laurencio said:
If the EU isn't united and strong enough and the US doesn't look likely to honour a call for article 5, Putin might think that certain countries in Europe would follow the US example and not answer the call, and risk it.

It's an unlikely scenario, but I know that is the scenario defence ministries across Europe are considering right now.
Click to expand...
The EU isn't united now and 2 major members of NATO aren't in the EU either
 


The net effect of the Western sanctions is that the West has cut itself off from resources it needs, in return for cutting Russia off from things it doesn't really need.
 
Suedesi said:


The net effect of the Western sanctions is that the West has cut itself off from resources it needs, in return for cutting Russia off from things it doesn't really need.
Click to expand...

What resource does Russia have that no-one else can supply?
 
Suedesi said:


The net effect of the Western sanctions is that the West has cut itself off from resources it needs, in return for cutting Russia off from things it doesn't really need.
Click to expand...


"favourable to the long term development of the Russian economy" Good lord, I couldn't get past there, comical. The Russian economy is dead, they just playing weekend at Bernie's with it. The rouble is worthless and foreign reserves are drying up. They are now beholden to China to function.

They are no doubt doing a very good job of adapting and managing it, but its just a matter of time. Probably too much time to affect this war unfortunately. Either way, these sanctions should have been in place 10 years ago.
 
Simbo said:
"favourable to the long term development of the Russian economy" Good lord, I couldn't get past there, comical. The Russian economy is dead, they just playing weekend at Bernie's with it. The rouble is worthless and foreign reserves are drying up. They are now beholden to China to function.

They are no doubt doing a very good job of adapting and managing it, but its just a matter of time. Probably too much time to affect this war unfortunately. Either way, these sanctions should have been in place 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

Im hearing a matter of time since they were many people that said that russia could not hold 3 months of war

Also about the reserves for a few months

Matter of time...and here we are

So far seems putin was well prepared for the eventuality.
 
Simbo said:
"favourable to the long term development of the Russian economy" Good lord, I couldn't get past there, comical. The Russian economy is dead
Click to expand...

While unsurprising you didn't make it beyond the part you didn't like to hear, it's still disappointing. I'd have been interested to hear you refute the facts he goes on to state that corroborate his opinion. James Galbraith is a highly respected economist and university professor and has been demonstrably correct about this issue since late 2022. You are neither. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld's delusional nonsense continues to be cited in the Western media as reasons for why the sanctions will one distant halcyon day be effective and Galbraith is correct to run down the flaws of his thinking. If you're able to refute his concrete points instead of dismissing them before you've even heard them, go ahead.

From the last day alone there have been 2 more mainstream articles on this issue of the Russian economy. Here's CNN talking about how Russia is currently producing 3 times more artillery than the entire West combined:

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/10/...shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html

That article is relevant because, per the video you couldn't make it through, Sonnenfeld was saying back in April 2022 that the sanctions would cripple the Russian economy/war machine and lead to Ukraine's victory by 2023. They would make it nigh-on impossible for Russia to produce weapons at the required rate. Crucially, this was also the thinking of the idiots in Washington and London who trust him as a source; colonial holdovers who believed that the world's borders start and end with "the collective West". The ONLY way Ukraine could ever have won this war was if the West succeeded in crashing the Russian economy in 2022 (this is reportedly what they promised Zelenskiy they would do if he agreed to keep fighting back in April 2022). They didn't, because to do that required getting the likes of China, India and the rest of the global south to go along with it. The result is this attritional shitshow that Ukraine is fated to lose and for which the Pope is apparently a "piece of sh*t fascist-sympathising c*nt" for stating the obvious that peace talks are required now ("BUT YOU СAN'T NEGOTIATE WITH PUTIN! HE BREAKS EVERY AGREEMENT HE EVER MAKES!" - yeah, the entire non-Western world has a 23-year track record that suggests otherwise. Putin is not the only common denominator here, but looking in a mirror is not the West's strongest point).

Here's the 2nd article from yesterday:

https://www.economist.com/finance-a...sias-economy-once-again-defies-the-doomsayers

That article is notable because it was doing very well up until the very last line. It lays out why the Russian economy keeps on "defying the doomsayers", points to its good relations with every country on earth that isn't "the West", but then ends with: "The world's pariah economy is once again back on track". There we see it again, the West's habit of refering to itself as a synecdoche for "the world". An entire article talking about how the vast majority of the planet continues to do business with Russia...and then you describe it as 'the world's pariah".

Long ago I had 2 hopes for a silver lining to this war - 1) an improvement in media literacy among Western people (that is, 26 months into this war, you see a tweet from some random moron saying "change my mind" after posting a picture of foreign flags in Ukraine like he's setting up a first XI for a football match, and you choose not to promulgate it because you recognise it's utterly imbecilic), and 2) the West will get over itself and realise it is nowhere near as powerful and influential as it imagined it was back in 2022. More importantly going foward, I hoped the West would realise why so much of the world is not going along with its agenda (spoiler alert, it's not because "they hate freedom and democracy"). Unfortunately the opposite is happening. Media literacy is as bad as it has ever been and the West continues to lead Ukraine down the garden path.
 
Last edited:
Sonnenfeld is a character. He teaches leadership and corporate governance, so it's puzzling how he's become a go-to source in a field beyond his expertise, i.e. sanctions. His job is literally - for example to draw on a current issue - to call for Boeing senior leadership to have all of their bonuses cancelled and clawed back.
 
Love the peace talks are required now camp. Ukraine should supposedly talk about a peace deal which would include giving to on a part of its territory cause sure as hell Russia won't give up on it.
But Putin is portrayed as someone who's ready to talk about a peace deal after occupying a 3rd of Ukraine and bombing it every day.

I guess he's a leader who just wants to live in peace and trade with other nations.
 
Real Name said:
Love the peace talks are required now camp. Ukraine should supposedly talk about a peace deal which would include giving to on a part of its territory cause sure as hell Russia won't give up on it.
But Putin is portrayed as someone who's ready to talk about a peace deal after occupying a 3rd of Ukraine and bombing it every day.

I guess he's a leader who just wants to live in peace and trade with other nations.
Click to expand...
Peace in Ukraine now would essentially mean Ukraine permanently giving up its sovereignty while Putin is getting time and space to start preparing for his next adventure, probably in the Baltics. Russians and their useful idiots elsewhere are obviously happy with that scenario but Ukraine can't afford giving up now, as hard as it is with western dithering.
 
Ukraine-based Russian armed groups claim raids into Russia

Three Ukraine-based Russian paramilitary groups say they have crossed into Russia and are now fighting government troops there. The Freedom of Russia Legion (FRL) and Siberian Battalion (SB) posted videos purportedly showing their fighters in Russia's Belgorod and Kursk regions. The FRL and an exiled Russian politician claimed two villages were now in control of "liberation forces".

Russia's defence ministry said the breakthrough attempts were thwarted.
Click to expand...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68541911
 
DT12 said:
While unsurprising you didn't make it beyond the part you didn't like to hear, it's still disappointing. I'd have been interested to hear you refute the facts he goes on to state that corroborate his opinion. James Galbraith is a highly respected economist and university professor and has been demonstrably correct about this issue since late 2022. You are neither. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld's delusional nonsense continues to be cited in the Western media as reasons for why the sanctions will one distant halcyon day be effective and Galbraith is correct to run down the flaws of his thinking. If you're able to refute his concrete points instead of dismissing them before you've even heard them, go ahead.

From the last day alone there have been 2 more mainstream articles on this issue of the Russian economy. Here's CNN talking about how Russia is currently producing 3 times more artillery than the entire West combined:

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/10/...shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html

That article is relevant because, per the video you couldn't make it through, Sonnenfeld was saying back in April 2022 that the sanctions would cripple the Russian economy/war machine and lead to Ukraine's victory by 2023. They would make it nigh-on impossible for Russia to produce weapons at the required rate. Crucially, this was also the thinking of the idiots in Washington and London who trust him as a source; colonial holdovers who believed that the world's borders start and end with "the collective West". The ONLY way Ukraine could ever have won this war was if the West succeeded in crashing the Russian economy in 2022 (this is reportedly what they promised Zelenskiy they would do if he agreed to keep fighting back in April 2022). They didn't, because to do that required getting the likes of China, India and the rest of the global south to go along with it. The result is this attritional shitshow that Ukraine is fated to lose and for which the Pope is apparently a "piece of sh*t fascist-sympathising c*nt" for stating the obvious that peace talks are required now ("BUT YOU СAN'T NEGOTIATE WITH PUTIN! HE BREAKS EVERY AGREEMENT HE EVER MAKES!" - yeah, the entire non-Western world has a 23-year track record that suggests otherwise. Putin is not the only common denominator here, but looking in a mirror is not the West's strongest point).

Here's the 2nd article from yesterday:

https://www.economist.com/finance-a...sias-economy-once-again-defies-the-doomsayers

That article is notable because it was doing very well up until the very last line. It lays out why the Russian economy keeps on "defying the doomsayers", points to its good relations with every country on earth that isn't "the West", but then ends with: "The world's pariah economy is once again back on track". There we see it again, the West's habit of refering to itself as a synecdoche for "the world". An entire article talking about how the vast majority of the planet continues to do business with Russia...and then you describe it as 'the world's pariah".

Long ago I had 2 hopes for a silver lining to this war - 1) an improvement in media literacy among Western people (that is, 26 months into this war, you see a tweet from some random moron saying "change my mind" after posting a picture of foreign flags in Ukraine like he's setting up a first XI for a football match, and you choose not to promulgate it because you recognise it's utterly imbecilic), and 2) the West will get over itself and realise it is nowhere near as powerful and influential as it imagined it was back in 2022. More importantly going foward, I hoped the West would realise why so much of the world is not going along with its agenda (spoiler alert, it's not because "they hate freedom and democracy"). Unfortunately the opposite is happening. Media literacy is as bad as it has ever been and the West continues to lead Ukraine down the garden path.
Click to expand...

Well, as long as you get to feel superior about your claimed media literacy advantage over the collective West, that's something at least.
 
3:00 - A final stake in the heart to the arguments of any remaining Putin apologists about the lie that Russia invaded Ukraine to stop NATO expansion. The addition of Finland alone has doubled Russian border territory with NATO countries, so if NATO was always the concern, then why hasn't Putin redeployed half of his troops in Ukraine to the Finland border ?

 
DT12 said:
While unsurprising you didn't make it beyond the part you didn't like to hear, it's still disappointing. I'd have been interested to hear you refute the facts he goes on to state that corroborate his opinion. James Galbraith is a highly respected economist and university professor and has been demonstrably correct about this issue since late 2022. You are neither. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld's delusional nonsense continues to be cited in the Western media as reasons for why the sanctions will one distant halcyon day be effective and Galbraith is correct to run down the flaws of his thinking. If you're able to refute his concrete points instead of dismissing them before you've even heard them, go ahead.

From the last day alone there have been 2 more mainstream articles on this issue of the Russian economy. Here's CNN talking about how Russia is currently producing 3 times more artillery than the entire West combined:

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/10/...shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html

That article is relevant because, per the video you couldn't make it through, Sonnenfeld was saying back in April 2022 that the sanctions would cripple the Russian economy/war machine and lead to Ukraine's victory by 2023. They would make it nigh-on impossible for Russia to produce weapons at the required rate. Crucially, this was also the thinking of the idiots in Washington and London who trust him as a source; colonial holdovers who believed that the world's borders start and end with "the collective West". The ONLY way Ukraine could ever have won this war was if the West succeeded in crashing the Russian economy in 2022 (this is reportedly what they promised Zelenskiy they would do if he agreed to keep fighting back in April 2022). They didn't, because to do that required getting the likes of China, India and the rest of the global south to go along with it. The result is this attritional shitshow that Ukraine is fated to lose and for which the Pope is apparently a "piece of sh*t fascist-sympathising c*nt" for stating the obvious that peace talks are required now ("BUT YOU СAN'T NEGOTIATE WITH PUTIN! HE BREAKS EVERY AGREEMENT HE EVER MAKES!" - yeah, the entire non-Western world has a 23-year track record that suggests otherwise. Putin is not the only common denominator here, but looking in a mirror is not the West's strongest point).

Here's the 2nd article from yesterday:

https://www.economist.com/finance-a...sias-economy-once-again-defies-the-doomsayers

That article is notable because it was doing very well up until the very last line. It lays out why the Russian economy keeps on "defying the doomsayers", points to its good relations with every country on earth that isn't "the West", but then ends with: "The world's pariah economy is once again back on track". There we see it again, the West's habit of refering to itself as a synecdoche for "the world". An entire article talking about how the vast majority of the planet continues to do business with Russia...and then you describe it as 'the world's pariah".

Long ago I had 2 hopes for a silver lining to this war - 1) an improvement in media literacy among Western people (that is, 26 months into this war, you see a tweet from some random moron saying "change my mind" after posting a picture of foreign flags in Ukraine like he's setting up a first XI for a football match, and you choose not to promulgate it because you recognise it's utterly imbecilic), and 2) the West will get over itself and realise it is nowhere near as powerful and influential as it imagined it was back in 2022. More importantly going foward, I hoped the West would realise why so much of the world is not going along with its agenda (spoiler alert, it's not because "they hate freedom and democracy"). Unfortunately the opposite is happening. Media literacy is as bad as it has ever been and the West continues to lead Ukraine down the garden path.
Click to expand...
The west as you call it is very powerful but that needs agreement amongst all parties. Sanctions don't ever seem to work but not providing weapons is a disaster. Its like one of the reasons I hate eu countries, they talk and talk but do nothing, a stray missile on a nato country might help everyone.
 
Sanctions are effective if everybody take part.
The sanctions against Russia might be the hardest ever but only the US and some Western democracies are really following them. It doesn't help if China gives a damn and India imports 33x more oil from Russia than before the war.
I thought the West was controlling the insurances of the tankers. Unfortunately, this seems also to have only a minor effect on Russian oil exports as well as the introduced price cap.
Many countries of the global south more or less support Russia because they want a multipolar world. It's the reality many Europeans don't want to hear.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
Good. Hopefully, that will provide the Ukrainians a much-needed morale booster to hit back at the Putinist army in other areas in the next 72 hours.
Click to expand...
It does look like it amounted to anything, so that’s unlikely.
 
4bars said:
Im hearing a matter of time since they were many people that said that russia could not hold 3 months of war

Also about the reserves for a few months

Matter of time...and here we are

So far seems putin was well prepared for the eventuality.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the world is just impatient is all. Understandable of course considering the horrors Putin is inflicting. It IS a matter of time, just talking years, not months.
 
Simbo said:
Yeah, the world is just impatient is all. Understandable of course considering the horrors Putin is inflicting. It IS a matter of time, just talking years, not months.
Click to expand...

It may only be me but it has been a very long time since a heavily media-covered conflict took this long until major military operations on all sides were suspended or so.

To be very honest, the level of Ukrainian resistance in the last 2 years kinda made us expect Russia would go eventually out with tails between their legs by now. FYI: China abandoned their idea of taking over Vietnam after a single month of conflict in 1979 because losses there were just not sustainable, not even to the most populous country on Earth.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
It may only be me but it has been a very long time since a heavily media-covered conflict took this long until major military operations on all sides were suspended or so.

To be very honest, the level of Ukrainian resistance in the last 2 years kinda made us expect Russia would go eventually out with tails between their legs by now. FYI: China abandoned their idea of taking over Vietnam after a single month of conflict in 1979 because losses there were just not sustainable, not even to the most populous country on Earth.
Click to expand...

Afghanistan was +20 years and ended worse off. That is why is unlikely that Putin can't win in the long run. You can't hold a country that opposes your regime. Negotiations will always be in his favour because will be de facto accepted. But Ukraine will be destroyed in the process so Ukraine is the one that needs to decide
 
Real Name said:
Love the peace talks are required now camp. Ukraine should supposedly talk about a peace deal which would include giving to on a part of its territory cause sure as hell Russia won't give up on it.
Click to expand...

Every single Western leader with an IQ greater than room temperature now says that this war will end at the negotiation table. Last week the CIA director William Burns visited Kiev for his 10th meeting with Zelenskiy. Yesterday, back in Washington, he gave over 2 hours of testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Here is what he said regarding the push to get the $61 billion to Ukraine (my own emphasis and underlining to illustrate the point):

"With additional funding, Ukraine should be able to regain the offensive initiative by the end of this year or early 2025. Such a shift would put Ukraine in a stronger position to negotiate with President Putin of Russia"

You see the shift in language? It's not just the amorphous "negotiation table" anymore (at which Zelenskiy has signed a law making it illegal to sit down with Putin), it specifies "President Putin of Russia". This is not accidental, this was from his scripted opening statement to the Committee. These guys are very careful with the language they use. For all you folk saying "Ukraine will never negotiate with Putin!", the CIA director is saying they will have to, and he's saying it days after meeting with Zelenskiy (a meeting incidentally that has now led to reports in Ukrainian media that Kuleba is about to be fired as foreign minister). Putin's going nowhere. 2 years ago the pipe dream was to collapse the Russian economy, reclaim all of Ukraine's territory, and cause the downfall of Putin's regime. In other words, the military defeat of Russia. Now the new shambolic masterplan is to just about keep Ukraine in the game until next year, when yet another 'counter-offensive' will attempt to "strengthen Ukraine's position at the negotiation table" (nobody during the hearing yesterday pressed Burns on whether that wasn't meant to be the point of the last 'counter-offensive' that resulted in tens of thousands more dead Ukrainians).

So you can dismiss the "peace talks camp" all you like, but you'd be dismissing everyone from Biden to Blinken to (as of yesterday) Stoltenberg (his new definition of 'Ukrainian victory' is some vague horseshit about "retaining their sovereignty").

I just watched General Pat Ryder's Pentagon press briefing from today. He was pressed on his use of the term "Ukraine must win this fight" (the question put to him was: "Do you mean win this war?"). He of course evaded the question, as they all now do. But the shift in language from "win the war" to "win this fight" is in anticipation of Ukraine eventually giving up the regions Putin has annexed. I guess Kiev and Lviv will retain some form of "sovereignty" - if "sovereignty" means "saddled with unpayable debt for generations" - and that's what the West will call a "victory" for Ukraine. Only the delusional lunatics among Zelenskiy's sprawling network of "advisers", plus irrelevant foreign ministers like the Lithuanian and Polish guys, still talk about "Ukrainian victory". Anyone of any importance knows how this is all going to end. At this stage in the war the only people who are still fooled about Ukraine's situation are those who want to be fooled (or else they're shameless senators like Richard Blumenthal and Lindsey Graham, whose primary interest now is getting their donors at Raytheon and Lockheed Martin one last big 61 billion dollar taxpayer-funded payday). I only wonder if the White House regrets hauling Mark Milley in for some political re-education back in December of 2022 when he said that then would be the best time for Ukraine to negotiate.

It's yet another example of strategic incoherence from the West. "Negotiations are futile because Putin can't be trusted...BUT, this war will inevitably end at the negotiating table with Putin representing the Russian side". If it's accepted that this war will end in negotiations with Putin then my question for Western leaders is: what exactly are you waiting for? For another 40,000 Ukrainian conscripts to die 'weakening' the Russian army for you a bit more, only to then have them agree to a peace arrangement they could have got now? For the military industrial complex to get a couple hundred more billion from the taxpayers? As I keep on asking: what on earth is the goal here? What is the strategy? Answer (per multiple Western diplomats) - there literally isn't one. They're making it up as they go along, 'led' by a total imbecile in Jake Sullivan. So when William Burns says repeatedly yesterday: "Our allies around the world are watching what we do in Ukraine", I think to myself "Yeah, I hope they are. I hope they see what a total lack of a coherent game plan you have for Ukraine, because you're up next, Taiwan".
 
B. Munich said:
Many countries of the global south more or less support Russia because they want a multipolar world. It's the reality many Europeans don't want to hear.
Click to expand...

This is certainly true about the multipolar world, but their support goes deeper than that. To take India as an example, back in 2022 the Indian foreign minister Jaishankar was on a stage fielding accusatory questions from Western media about why India continued to do business with Russia. On stage with him was Anthony Blinken who said he was there "to tell India that Russia is not a reliable partner" (the subsequent 2 years have lanced most of the condescension from Blinken). With his customary beautifully-controlled sarcasm, Jaishankar suggested that India itself would decide who has been a reliable partner for his country thoughout history, given that it was America that - for all its talk of cherishing "democracies" like India - has chosen instead to arm to the teeth a military diсtatorship on their doorstep.

This is why it was obvious to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of history that the sanctions would not work as Yellen, Biden, Blinken and that cretin Sonnenfeld said they would. The majority of the world thinks the West losing this war in Ukraine will be a good thing, and history points to why.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.