Russia drastically miscalculated the sociopathy of western leaders. They would destroy 99% of life on earth without hesitation, if that were the price of dominion over what remained.
They see Russian restraint not as reasonableness or humanitarianism, but as contemptible weakness.
What astounds me is the lack of thought, going all the way back to 1997. And, of course, no-one was ever punished for any disasters, no matter how bad (e.g., the invasion of Iraq in 2003), so the system never learns from its mistakes.
Zelensky's new military chief recently claimed that 'Russia is losing' on the Eastern Front, and that 'everything is going to plan' as his army 'relocates to prepared better positions' - of which there are no sign on recent satellite imagery, while the chaotic retreat or rout continues: it seems either that no engineers or other soldiers could be spared from the front to prepare fallback positions, or that Kiev simply wasn't prepared to consider defeat at Avdiivka, or both.
So Zelensky has now, for the first time since Boris Johnson told him almost 2 years ago that talking to Russia wasn't allowed, from his new position of strength, begun to suggest he might consider accepting a Russian surrender.
Of course Russia, according to the Ukrainian law he introduced in 2022, will in any settlement have to withdraw from all the land of Ukraine in 1992 (when Kiev formally annexed Crimea despite a majority vote there in 1991 for independence). Also they will have to pay all the costs, now estimated at over $1tn, for rebuilding his new country, along with vast reparations, and submit to prosecution for war crimes.
But as he and the Troika with Yermak and (CIA-trained) Budanov are so clearly winning, it's time to stop further bloodshed, and he will be magnanimous in victory after a complete Russian surrender.
A senior aide, according to the last Time profile called him 'delusional'.
But totally insane now seems a better description.
We are back at the beginning. Ukraine needs to stay neutral. No NATO membership but they can and will trade with the west. Ukraine will be a buffer state for Russa and NATO.
EU leaders continue to disgrace themselves as feckless windbags. Putin must be rolling his eyes. Problem is, none of these heads of state don't fear losing their jobs. The (anti-war/anti-Imperialist) right wing parties top off their vote share at <40%... and no other parties will form a coalition with them to gain a majority... except Trump (probably) ... and he'll gladly go to war against Iran. We're screwed.
To me the most shocking thing in the NYT report of close CIA cooperation with Ukraine from 2014 was the unanimous praise, and appetite for endless war against the Red Peril, in the readers' comments.
Stoltenburg only said there are no plans to put “combat troops” on “the ground” in Ukraine. Perhaps it’s semantics. Or perhaps the wording was chosen very carefully.
Macron's party's constituency includes an important number of European federalists who would be disposed to swap putting the French nuclear force under a prospective EU "commandment" in exchange for the Northern fiscally "virtuous" countries consenting to sharing all EU members' debt.
EU nations are indispensable suppliers of arms and contract manpower to Ukraine. That makes them a participant in the conflict. It's unfortunate they can't bear to admit their participation openly, and account for its costs openly. The costs are out of their pockets and out of their population. It would help clarify matters pretty quickly.
Also someone on twitter suggested, it would be a pretty interesting experiment to sub in a French brigade for one of the Ukrainian ones, and see what really happens.
To the author Mr. Bryan, it should be remembered that the EU and NATO are connected by means of a treaty that has already been extended / renewed 3 times, so the EU is clearly the political arm of NATO. Russia should also pay attention to this when it talks about the fact that it has no problem if Ukraine enters the EU, which in fact means entering through the back door of NATO. Attached is the corresponding link
Nice, I was following as european that Conference and got the NYT article to read next days.
If Trump will slow down money and armaments and support to Nato, it'll be the finest thing he could do for Europe.
The article about Cia in Ukraine has also a date, a timing and that's the number of years they started building those centers there, safely and under the sun.
It's 8 years.
That means that Cia and US were behind the coup of Maidan and relative massacre of civilians, so Putin was right the other day calling 2014 as the start of Ukraine war to russians (east regions ones) and the start of real threats directly to Russia as you described here.
As that kind of woman former Germany PM Merkel said, Putin and Russians did the mistake to not intervene in 2014 believing Minsk 1 and 2 were something serious instead of a cover to take time to prepare a war.
That said, 2 things are pretty clear now:
first, US/Nato/Cia planned the coup and the war extremely in details and strategically in 2008 as Putin affirmed in the interview.
Second, Germany has sold his soul to US completely times ago as the Nord Stream sabotage didn't even make a title in german internal Politics...
And Macron, Macron is an i...t (I'm not allowed to write it XD). He will never be remembered as Chirac or Mitterand were, he'll be forgotten quickly as soon as he'll leave Champs Elysées. As him most of the actual EU puppets from most of the countries will fade. To be remembered you need to be a Leader, not a servant.
Russia drastically miscalculated the sociopathy of western leaders. They would destroy 99% of life on earth without hesitation, if that were the price of dominion over what remained.
They see Russian restraint not as reasonableness or humanitarianism, but as contemptible weakness.
What astounds me is the lack of thought, going all the way back to 1997. And, of course, no-one was ever punished for any disasters, no matter how bad (e.g., the invasion of Iraq in 2003), so the system never learns from its mistakes.
Zelensky's new military chief recently claimed that 'Russia is losing' on the Eastern Front, and that 'everything is going to plan' as his army 'relocates to prepared better positions' - of which there are no sign on recent satellite imagery, while the chaotic retreat or rout continues: it seems either that no engineers or other soldiers could be spared from the front to prepare fallback positions, or that Kiev simply wasn't prepared to consider defeat at Avdiivka, or both.
So Zelensky has now, for the first time since Boris Johnson told him almost 2 years ago that talking to Russia wasn't allowed, from his new position of strength, begun to suggest he might consider accepting a Russian surrender.
Of course Russia, according to the Ukrainian law he introduced in 2022, will in any settlement have to withdraw from all the land of Ukraine in 1992 (when Kiev formally annexed Crimea despite a majority vote there in 1991 for independence). Also they will have to pay all the costs, now estimated at over $1tn, for rebuilding his new country, along with vast reparations, and submit to prosecution for war crimes.
But as he and the Troika with Yermak and (CIA-trained) Budanov are so clearly winning, it's time to stop further bloodshed, and he will be magnanimous in victory after a complete Russian surrender.
A senior aide, according to the last Time profile called him 'delusional'.
But totally insane now seems a better description.
Regime change is sorely needed, but in the US and Europe (particularly France and Germany), not in Russia.
We are back at the beginning. Ukraine needs to stay neutral. No NATO membership but they can and will trade with the west. Ukraine will be a buffer state for Russa and NATO.
EU leaders continue to disgrace themselves as feckless windbags. Putin must be rolling his eyes. Problem is, none of these heads of state don't fear losing their jobs. The (anti-war/anti-Imperialist) right wing parties top off their vote share at <40%... and no other parties will form a coalition with them to gain a majority... except Trump (probably) ... and he'll gladly go to war against Iran. We're screwed.
Alexander Mercouris is telling his audience that Stephen Bryen's columns in AT are indispensable reading. He's right!
To me the most shocking thing in the NYT report of close CIA cooperation with Ukraine from 2014 was the unanimous praise, and appetite for endless war against the Red Peril, in the readers' comments.
Jeez... Will they never learn?
Stoltenburg only said there are no plans to put “combat troops” on “the ground” in Ukraine. Perhaps it’s semantics. Or perhaps the wording was chosen very carefully.
Macron's party's constituency includes an important number of European federalists who would be disposed to swap putting the French nuclear force under a prospective EU "commandment" in exchange for the Northern fiscally "virtuous" countries consenting to sharing all EU members' debt.
I was surprised by Macron's move.
He's not stupid, and knew it would draw a strong, immediate, negative response in France and Europe in general (apart rrom the crazy Baltic).
So what was he playing at, the guy who (alone among Western leaders) tried to keep talking to Putin as the war started?
I think psycho Budanov wanted a disaster in Avdiivka in order to raise the stakes. And maybe Macron was just joining in that poker game?
Floating the *idea* of a wider war, knowing the idea would be shot down immediately, but would then be 'out there' as a new factor in the game?
EU nations are indispensable suppliers of arms and contract manpower to Ukraine. That makes them a participant in the conflict. It's unfortunate they can't bear to admit their participation openly, and account for its costs openly. The costs are out of their pockets and out of their population. It would help clarify matters pretty quickly.
Also someone on twitter suggested, it would be a pretty interesting experiment to sub in a French brigade for one of the Ukrainian ones, and see what really happens.
To the author Mr. Bryan, it should be remembered that the EU and NATO are connected by means of a treaty that has already been extended / renewed 3 times, so the EU is clearly the political arm of NATO. Russia should also pay attention to this when it talks about the fact that it has no problem if Ukraine enters the EU, which in fact means entering through the back door of NATO. Attached is the corresponding link
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/de/press/press-releases/2023/01/10/eu-nato-joint-declaration-10-january-2023/
Nice, I was following as european that Conference and got the NYT article to read next days.
If Trump will slow down money and armaments and support to Nato, it'll be the finest thing he could do for Europe.
The article about Cia in Ukraine has also a date, a timing and that's the number of years they started building those centers there, safely and under the sun.
It's 8 years.
That means that Cia and US were behind the coup of Maidan and relative massacre of civilians, so Putin was right the other day calling 2014 as the start of Ukraine war to russians (east regions ones) and the start of real threats directly to Russia as you described here.
As that kind of woman former Germany PM Merkel said, Putin and Russians did the mistake to not intervene in 2014 believing Minsk 1 and 2 were something serious instead of a cover to take time to prepare a war.
That said, 2 things are pretty clear now:
first, US/Nato/Cia planned the coup and the war extremely in details and strategically in 2008 as Putin affirmed in the interview.
Second, Germany has sold his soul to US completely times ago as the Nord Stream sabotage didn't even make a title in german internal Politics...
And Macron, Macron is an i...t (I'm not allowed to write it XD). He will never be remembered as Chirac or Mitterand were, he'll be forgotten quickly as soon as he'll leave Champs Elysées. As him most of the actual EU puppets from most of the countries will fade. To be remembered you need to be a Leader, not a servant.