Free Republic

Wrong link: https://www.rferl.org/a/us-sanctions-dugin-separatists/26893841.html

“Any U.S. property held by those individuals is frozen, and U.S. citizens are prohibited from doing business with them.”

That means, at that time, his books aren’t for sale.

Yes, he was censored. That means you can’t legally sell his book on Amazon or anywhere else.

But Micheal Moore documentaries are okay of course.

You don’t get the point. It’s irrelevant if anyone agrees with his philosophy. The very point that the US is in the book banning business, and we are, should be a concern to you. But I suppose if I ban books and say it’s patriotic and wave a flag in your face, then it’s ok.

You are wilfully ignorant. It’s impossible to have a meaningful conversation with someone like that.

Wars start for whatever reason.

Paraphrasing: War is nothing but the continuation of policy with other means, Clausewitz.

If you have an issue, and it’s very important but the two parties are outside any reasonable compromise, an armed conflict can ensue.

For Russia, their national security is an important issue. When we decided to move forward with NATO for Ukraine, then fast tracked the process and refused to negotiate on anything except repeat our intentions, there is no reasonable zone of compromise. It becomes all or nothing at that point and we defined the situation such. At that point war became the only option if Russia is going to block Ukraine from being in NATO. Yes, we caused it.

But... when you have a nation like the US, that is the only remaining superpower, and they don’t feel they have to follow their own rules (ballistic missile treaty - put others before international courts but not our own), use military and economic warfare at the drop of a dime, and simply act with impunity because of a feeling of superiority, invincibility and invulnerability, you get tangled up in 251 different military operations since 1991.

Look, we have a big and effective hammer, and post 1991 our policy makers have learned to use it. It’s entirely rational what happened. There is no competition and it works.

To some degree, the invulnerability is true, since the Atlantic and Pacific, our buffer states (allies in Europe and Asia), military, economic, tech, stranglehold on the media and arts, massive intel service do make us harder to hit. So there isn’t this fear of retaliation and we are very bold in our actions. Occasionally you’re going to get a 9-11, but it’s rare because we are simply well insulated.

Eventually, folks begin to feel superior and think only THEIR perceptions are true and moral, that you get to play judge of right and wrong. Even if inconsistent and hypocritical (we would not accept the situation we’re trying to put Russia in, and have not, i.e. Cuban Missile Crisis), lying (promise of no NATO expansion) , and cheating (Minsk) along the way.

Before you claim we’re perfect and don’t lie, please: https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east The argument that we promised the Russians such can be made.

Might does not really make right, even though that’s what the Romans, Nazis, British empire, Spanish conquistadors, Persians, and yes us, think.

The Russians have a perspective, it’s a national security perspective. You simply choose to pretend this does not exist, and you choose to believe that we didn’t lie, didn’t cheat, and didn’t break promises on the path to war.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-carlson-biden-administration-demanding-amazon-censor-books-disagree-with. He explains the government book censoring and how it essentially works. Dugin is addressed.

Even you should understand the wiki write up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin. Read under “sanctions.” This specifically addresses Dugin and his books.

https://www.rferl.org/a/dugin-texas-lecture-white-supremacist-ukraine-russia/26975427.html. That is (((literally))) US government propaganda, i.e. government information operations intended to influence perceptions in order to change behaviors. Point is, an official government new agency is mentioning the censorship.

That was 2 (Tucker) or more (RFE) years ago and some or all of Dugins books may be available today.

Shaming people sometimes works.

Let me get to the point so you can’t ignore or talk around it.

***Do you deny that Dugin was censored?

***Do you deny that the US government today is also in the book banning business?

Once Ukraine is in NATO we can, and we are emplaced missile defense in Romania and Poland even BEFORE this Ukraine conflict happened.

Yes, you finally get it, maybe.

Aleksandr Dugin, who essentially writes philosophy books really is censored in the US: https://www.rferl.org/a/us-sanctions-dugin-separatists/26893841.html

Like Mulligan, Radio Free Europe (a US government paid for propaganda operation) uses slander and inflammatory words, name calling, to pretend they have an argument.

All our US book censoring has gone crazy too. Today we do have thousands of books that are banned or suppressed. Since 2022 there has been a 63% increase in book banning.

Seriously, it’s getting scary. This is NOT what freedom and a liberal (classic sense) society looks like. Ironically, Dugin writes exactly about this paradox, how modern liberalism is actually authoritarian and oppressive, a minority rule and undemocratic.

IMHO,

You’re reading to much into him. The Cold War lasted a long time, it went deep into the soul of our nation and it’s perceptions of the world around us. The reverb from that era is still alive today.

He’s living in the past and is one of millions today like that.

It’s his “comfort zone.” This issue allows him to go back to his formative years (youth, possibly military service, movies, media in the Cold War era).

No one at the top actually believes the crap these people believe. The Soviet Union is gone. The Warsaw Pact is gone. Russia was spending roughly the same on GDP for defense as we were before we started this war...

But for a NeoCon, which you do have at the top and in positions of power people like this are merely pawns and their ideas, how they want to see the world, can easily be exploited to get support for what is an expeditionary, expansionist, economically motivated, war.

Did Afghanistan send tens of thousands of “little green men” into New York on 9-11?

You don’t have to attack someone outright to cause a war.

If Ethiopia turns off the water to Egypt, and Egypt marches on Ethiopia, did Egypt start the war just because they shot first? Of course not. These are more dumb arguments.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66776733

You know what is really “utterly amazing?” When the US is willing to go to war because of exactly what we’re trying to do to Russia today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

When the US invaded another country for exactly the same reason as what we expect Russia to accept today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Grenada

That is amazing!!!

For a while, the only way we could get our astronauts into space was in Russian spacecraft.

Then of course there was the assistance they gave us after 9-11, letting us use their military bases in Kyrgyzstan, providing us an Intel dump.

Speaking of Intel... There was a time where we worked together and the Russians were feeding us Intel on bad actors coming from areas where they have some influence, example the Boston Marathon bombers: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/boston-bombing-anniversary/russia-warned-u-s-about-tsarnaev-spelling-issue-let-him-n60836

I doubt that coordination regards terrorism is still happening, seeing how we’re backing Ukraine, and Ukraine is sponsoring outright terrorist attacks in Russia.

Darya Dugina, car bomb, Ukraine: https://www.thedailybeast.com/darya-dugina-daughter-of-putin-propagandist-alexander-dugin-killed-in-car-bomb-reports-say

St Petersburg bombing, Ukraine: https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240125-russia-sentences-woman-to-27-years-for-delivering-bomb-that-killed-pro-kremlin-blogger

Even the Moscow concert hall bombing, Ukraine: https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/russian-spy-chief-says-ukraine-was-directly-involved-in-moscow-concert-hall-attack/

Corroborating the Ukraine connection to the concert hall bombing is that all the suspects were fleeing in one direction, towards Ukraine. They had been given an area where they can cross the battlefield essentially. So Ukraine (((had to have))) a part in this terror attack.

I wonder, the next time we get attacked and cry about the evils of terrorism, will we remember our aiding and abetting it today?

Someone once said, “one mans terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” I suppose there is some truth to that statement.

Let’s look at how you argue for a sec.

—The bear is moving about on the porch, smelling food in the pantry.

Not in anyway related. We are the ones smelling weakness and vulnerability. We are the ones expanding. NATO is expanding. We are expanding into the Russian sphere of influence: Syria, Libya, Iraq, Venezuela...

Those are facts.

NATO:
https://youtu.be/ug2468hDl6E?si=PAxISPuxlQGHo10z
—So we close and lock the kitchen door.

We aren’t locking any door. We are about as interventionist, globalist, militant as we have EVER been in our history.

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fhq2sp7atgxa91.jpg. We are in more nations, have attacked more nations, have more troops overseas, spend more on defense, have one of the largest militaries, sponsored more coups, invaded more countries make more money off arms sales that any one else on this planet. AND YOU WANT TO MAKE IT SOUND LIKE WE’RE ISOLATIONIST AND KEEP TO OURSELVES!!!

—The bear smashes down the door, but that’s our fault.

We’re smashing down doors, i.e. Ukraine. Not Russia, us.

—We should have just let the bear in to eat our food and eventually eat us, like that poor woman out West.

Try writing something that is based on ANY facts as the relate to the subject.

For example:

October 2021: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/

We promise Ukraine that we’ll bring them into NATO.

November 2021:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59288181

Russia is amassing troops and trying to negotiate with us. We stonewall them.

December 2021: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2021/11/24/russia-s-military-build-up-near-ukraine-is-different-this-time-say-experts

Russia is amassing troops. They reach out to negotiate with us. We stonewall them.

Live fire exercises begin.

January 2022: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/23/russian-ships-tanks-and-troops-on-the-move-to-ukraine-as-peace-talks-stall

They build up troops. Still are trying to negotiate with us, with us still stonewalling them.

***Russia starts their troop build up and live fire exercises along the Ukraine border AFTER we make our move with NATO.

Why don’t you use your brain and stop trying to use dumb made up stories that have no relationship to the situation, cliches, and name calling, pretending as if it’s an argument doing that?

Using stupid names to describe people may be funny if Trump does it on the campaign trail, pointing out something we all also see in that person, Christe, Warren, Bush, Romney, Biden...

But you’re trying to create an argument that way, and it’s dumb.

Yes,

We caused it.

No need for this war.

Unless you believe it’s part of a grand strategy against Russia on a global stage. In which case, Ukraine isn’t the one benefiting, nor Europe.

And worse yet. We could end it at anytime.

Words people like you use: the Ukrainian “dictator and puppet” Mr Z, will do whatever we tell him, and if we tell him to end it, it’ll end. That simple.

Our political process is driving Ukraine’s timeline. Ukraine will only lose more as the war rages on, why I thought a deal would be negotiated after the failed Ukrainian counteroffensive. That would be a “best situation” for Ukraine.

Continuing the war simply means Ukraine will lose another major city this year, Kharkiv. Next year if we don’t end it Odessa will fall.

Eventually when Odessa falls, that’ll work out fantastic for the Russians who will tie into Transnistria (which we don’t show on our non-propagandist Western maps): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria

And no, our magical M1 Abrams isn’t going to stop that. At that point Ukraine can have their landlocked agrarian country in the West (industry and tech is near all gone).

For the Russians it’s quite simple hereon out:

1. Keep the pressure on so Ukraine cannot mass a force for a counteroffensive. Force them to fight and keep killing them.

2. Create a cost for not surrendering, I mean, negotiating a peace under the Russians terms.

There is a reason why all these nations are passing “foreign agent” laws and why even some of our NATO allies threw our NGOs out:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-69007465

https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/hungarys-ngos-feel-chilling-effect-of-foreign-funding-law

These laws don’t target Russia, they are because of (((us))). That is also why our NGOs, state department, the Euros are complaining. The NGO has become a primary tool by the western Intel service or foreign states to manipulate the political landscape in a country. Many of these NGOs despite their name are mostly funded by a government, in some cases through third parties to obscure what is an Intel service.

You make statements that you probably don’t even believe yourself.

Factually, the Russians started amassing troops along the border AFTER our move to bring Ukraine into NATO.

Factually, the Russians from October 2021 to February 2022 tried to negotiate with us and we STONEWALLED them.

That can easily be verified by simple media searches.

At least attempt to stay in reality. When you start making up things, which you can do about any subject, it doesn’t bring you any closer to a truth.

This was us, it was our call, and it caused a war: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/

In fact, other nations were more reserved about this and wanted to implement Minsk, i.e. Germany and France. This was a disengagement strategy, but we had ZERO interest and were the ones violating Minsk at every opportunity.

Those that just want to attack Christians will use anything to their arguments advantage. They are usually sick people emotionally. They are often guided by some horrible sin they want to partake in and normalize (Pedophilia and full bore euthanasia are coming next).

That’s why it’s very important that we educate our kids outside of secular public schools, hedonist and secular Hollywood, the arts (music, painting, sculpture...).

When you get one and the same message everywhere you look, it’s very easy to believe this or go along with it out of peer pressure (conformity).

I’ve been to Pompeii.

Anyone that likes Roman history needs to add this to a bucket list.

A vast immersive experience in history.

Make sure to pay for a tour. Without that it becomes a pile of rocks like many archeological sites if you don’t get the context.

If this war had never happened, the US would be somewhere in the range of $300 billion wealthier. Certain US firms have made a lot (arms/petro), but the average American tax payer has not. They are a net loser.

Had this war never happened, Ukraine would be better off. I won't even begin to list how Ukraine has suffered and been damaged by this war.

Had this war never happened, Europe would be better off.

This caused a war (plain and simple): https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/

That was our decision.

There was no eminent threat, no requirement, no need for that move.

WE KNEW THIS COULD LEAD TO WAR and in fact it is possible that WE WANTED THIS WAR.

In the meantime, Ukraine is no longer a democracy (the little bit they had), it is more advantageous to have a dictator who is 100% under our control, so now we no kidding rationalize why it's good to cancel elections. Ukraine’s human rights violations have become worse yet (they had a bad track record even before the war), and post Maiden they were essentially a cuckhold state of the US, a proxy who we control, so applying the concept of “sovereignty” on our side is somewhat ironic.

Post Maiden, Ukraine was basically under our control (someone that did some research and compiled a lot of info on this subject): https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-credible-evidence-that-Ukraines-2014-revolution-was-due-to-a-CIA-coup/answer/Kylee-Smith-83

I do not consider myself anti-Ukraine one bit, because I want that place to prosper and be in peace. It is your side that has some obsession with Russia, is stuck with a Cold War threat picture (these people and their “feelings” are just used by those in power because no one actually believes that crap), or in the Neo-Cons case (and these folks do have influence on our givernment) want to use our military as some new colonial force pushing our economic and political agenda around the world by dropping bombs. And then some folks think they're a “good person” because they spew vapid terms like “democracy, sovereignty, and human rights.”

There is such a thing as a “just war” concept, totally forgotten/ignored today. We know this, and that is why we use these ideas like democracy, sovereignty and human rights as our justification. We're trying to pretend like we have a moral cause essentially. But it's fake. We do not care if someone is a dictator and in fact instal them ourselves, or secure them as in Saudi Arabia, Jordan... If a democracy disagrees with us, we will topple that government and install our own, as in Ukraine. When you start shooting at people, or start a war as we did, you better be real sure that your cause is a good one. We we haven't had that in a looooong time.

When this war in Ukraine ends, there is a good chance that NATO itself is in crisis, and we'll have no one to blame but ourselves (of course we'll blame Russia and Putin).

The Euro's are beginning to wake up. They are realizing that this Ukraine war is part of a geo-political strategy by us against Russia and that Ukraine itself is irrelevant. It is for us just a means to an end.

You already have three Euro leaders coming out PUBLICALY stating what I claim, that we wanted this war, Robert Fico (Slovakia/NATO), Viktor Orban (Hungary/NATO), Aleksandar Vučić (Serbia).

One of them had an assasignation attempt on his life by someone on your side of the argument: https://apnews.com/article/slovakia-prime-minister-fico-speech-online-878f0271e2ec3d3c378abe966415e20b Could you imagine if this were the other way around? If a pro-war Euro politician had an assassination attempt on his life, what would the news be talking about 24/7 in your free, unbiased, non-propagandist MSM in the US? How long would it take before someone would concoct some theory that the Russians are behind this? That politician would be turned into George Floyd by our MSM.

You can talk about democracy, human rights and sovereignty all you want, but folks are starting to catch on, and it's not going to be pretty once the dust settles: https://news.cgtn.com/news/2023-09-27/U-S-blows-Nord-Stream-pipeline-to-keep-its-primacy-in-W-Europe-Hersh-1nr1Saengsg/index.html (in the name of sovereignty I assume. Oh wait, the Russians blew up their own pipeline that they were making money off of (when crazy conspiracy theories and government propaganda is suddenly the truth in the eyes of folks like you.)

In this Ukraine war, Europe is paying 1/2 the bill, taking on the majority of refugees. The Ukrainians are doing near all the bleeding. And we are the ones that stand to benefit.

Bad argument.

The differences between Iraq and Ukraine are irrelevent.

It’s “us” (the US) that invaded a nation which posed no national security threat to us, where we lied about a WMD and terrorist connection, where we have been asked REPEATEDLY to leave and we don’t (that’s called occupation), and we’re in control of this nation all while we spew our democracy, sovereignty, human rights crap endlessly (as if we’re some nice guys).

We have been asked to leave maybe 20 times or so... And because we care so much about a nations sovereignty, we don’t.

Most recently: https://www.newarab.com/news/iraqi-pm-al-sudani-demands-us-troops-leave-country

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ava2A1uI-8w

No worries, you have not been confronted much with this in your largely state directed narrative presented in your MSM. No thinking required. Google, our intel agency search engine (https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-cia-and-nsa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance) makes sure to rank all searches related to this low, and push those one or two stories about some “undisclosed” Iraqi official saying that “in private” the Iraqi’s don’t want our withdraw to the top. (hahaha)

Mere coincidently, Iraq is an oil producing nation and was once aligned with Russia. That surely has absolutely nothing to do with our decisions./sarc

Here’s a real conspiracy theory that is surely Russian propaganda (much less believable than democracy, human rights and sovereignty) for you: We used 9-11 as an excuse (never let a crisis go to waste) and seized another Russian territory becuse it had an economic value to us.

You guys that keep talking about “democracy, human rights and sovereignty,” do you really believe that? Seriously? Is that what you think is really the motivation on our side?

Just grabbing things out of thin air, is no argument either.

Chechnya and Ostia are terrorist hot beds, even Uzbekistan.

I remember when Condeleeza Rice was lecturing the Russians regards Chechnya, until 9-11 happened and we got a good dose of Islamic terror of our own.

In fact, once the US was fighting Chechen volunteers in Iraq, suddenly the US had an epiphany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_siege (look at where the Islamic terrorists came from)

In fact, while we were looking for evil Russian spies behind every tree (while the Chinese are boring holes through us like Swiss cheese even in our intel and DoD), we failed to be able to use the information the Russians provided to us regards two Chechen brothers: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA2P02R/

The Europeans are paying for roughly ½ of this war in Ukraine while also absorbing the majority of the refugees (Fact). The Ukrainians are doing nearly all the bleeding (Fact). And the US is the one that stands to benefit on the world stage (Fact).

You might not like that statement, but it's true.

(1) Motive

Syria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war

Libya: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

Iraq: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

Venezuela: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gideon_(2020)

Fact: These are all nations we attacked, invaded, or sponsored a coup in. These are all nations that are aligned or formal allies with Russia. These are all oil and gas producing nations. None of these nations posed a threat to us when we attacked, invaded or sponsored a coup in them.

(2) History. Russia already in 1994 made it clear that they do NOT want NATO expanding into their former Soviet Republics and border states. They see this also as a promise we made with them: https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east

Biden was one of the people sounding the alarm in 1997 regards NATO East expansion into the Balkan States: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIoRKLdwxXA

The Russian invasion of the Republic of Georgia in 2008, and the Ukrainian limited operation in 2014 were clear signs that Russia will not accept us expanding NATO to their borders. In both cases, the US was heading on a path for NATO admission by these states.

Georgia 2008: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_38988.htm#:~:text=Allies%20agreed%20at%20the%20NATO,reconfirmed%20at%20successive%20NATO%20summits. (we don't even go back and edit the web pages and deny it, like we often do. Flat out, we decided to bring Georgia into NATO, and Russian said “Niet”)

Ukraine 2014: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30587924 (That was the cause of the war in 2014)

As usual, we apply a doubled standard. We don't want a foreign power setting up permanent bases along our border, and historically invaded countries (Grenada) and risked a war over this exact same issue (Cuban Missile Crisis). But when we want to put someone else in the same position we didn't find acceptable in 1962 and 1984 for us, why then of course it's all different and suddenly “sovereignty, democracy, human rights” come flying from our ass.

(3) Intel. Before a major invasion like this happens, there is a massive amount of chatter, logistics, rich folks getting a heads up (so they can move their stuff), things which happen that indicate it's serious: real and eminent. Our civil leadership and White House is briefed daily and it is nearly impossible not to know.

(4) Again common sense (Logic): Ukraine has the same rail gauge as Russia and they share many bridges and hard ball roads. Ukraine is large enough in landmass, economically and in infrastructure to support a very large foreign force be stationed there indefinitely. North East Ukraine is 6 minutes time of flight to Moscow for a hyper-sonic missile, and most of Russia's ballistic missiles are impacted by a first strike advantage and by missile defense if we set up in Ukraine. Our basing in Ukraine would entirely tip the scales of nuclear deterrence against Russia, the only area where they have parity with us. Ukraine has deep sea ports, large and many airfields able to support big warships and strategic logistics (C5) and bombers (B52/B2). The area between Ukraine and Russia offers many large maneuver corridors, through which we can shove a mechanized force (i.e. invade) and the larger cities and forests allow for things to easily be hidden. Finally, Ukraine borders Romania, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia, NATO nations, making logistics via land from other NATO nations easy. It is from a national security standpoint, for Russia, unacceptable that Ukraine enters NATO. There is no rational person who would accept this situation is in Putin's shoes.

A war between Ukraine and Russia, even though Russia will prevail long term, will weaken Russia and give us more freedom of movement in those places where we and Russia have been struggling for control: Libya, Syria, Iraq, Venezuela, Niger (didn't go as we anticipated since we just got the boot there). This war in Ukraine makes it much harder for Russia to defend their sphere of influence around the world. It makes it harder for them to project force.

Our war industrial complex is working overtime, literally. In fact this has been a boost for US hardware even among our NATO allies: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/12/14/germany-clinches-8-billion-purchase-of-35-f-35-aircraft-from-the-us/

It's not just LM, it's Northrup Grumman, Boeing, General Dynamics, all of them: https://www.statista.com/statistics/260877/net-sales-of-lockheed-martin-to-the-us-government/

This has been an opportunity to eliminate the competition for gas in Europe: https://www.aa.com.tr/uploads/userFiles/ab870dc1-e87c-46af-a54e-cc928be7834a/gass.jpg

Meanwhile, our gas sales to Europe are going up: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2022.06.07/chart2.svg

In defense sales, oil and gas sales abroad, our ability to push Russia aside in the Middle East, North Africa and South America, we are the ONLY ONE that stands to benefit. Do you think Germany which is left with paying higher energy costs and is losing its competativeness, is flooded with refugees, and is hemoriging money for Ukraine is benefitting (they buy our weapons and buy our energy)? Who is the only real beneficiary in this war? People are starting to figure this out. This might not end well for NATO.

The average American is not a winner here. They pay the taxes for the 61 billion we give to Ukraine in a single appropriation. The winners are as usual the oligarchs, the ones that wanted NATO in Ukraine and stand to benefit even if a war starts. You're not any more wealthy, safe, or free. But you do have some image of yourself and faux morality with babble about sovereignty, democracy, and human rights to make yourself feel good if you support this war. That's how you sell it to the public, "you're a good person if you wear your double mask, you're patriotic if you get your vaccine..." You create some sort of association where you're a good person if you do or think as told: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/12/21/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-fight-against-covid-19/ Not because it makes sense, not because they have an actual sound argument, but because you're responsible, professional, patriotic, whatever if you do as they tell you. You see the same regards Ukraine.

Claiming our government “stumbled” into this war out of incompetence, is highly unlikely. I do believe we have a more or less incompetent civil leadership, but even they had to have known that this will cause a war: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/

There was no pressing need for this. There was no eminent threat to us or the Ukraine. In fact, things in Ukraine were going very well, even for us. Why the sudden course change and push for NATO?

Ask yourself this, did it make sense in terms of Risk? Did it make sense in terms of ROI? We were already arming and training their forces, we were already feeding them intel... Ukraine was on a path to EU membership before the war and that was well in their reach. It makes no sense!

Proving that we wanted this war is another story. Unless there is some sort of a leak of documents etc. which show this (example Bush torture memo: a red pill) it will be almost impossible to prove and those people who want to be willfully ignorant will be able to live on in their blue pill world even though there is a plethora of evidence suggesting things are not as they appear both for the cause of this war, and how it is going.

Claiming our administration didn't know NATO expansion into Ukraine would cause a war, is like you trying to tell a traffic cop that you didn't know you had to stop at a red light. It's not even remotely feasible, BUT it's something where at least to the public you can pretend not to have known.

Having a good imagination is a great thing.

Allowing this imagination to fill in the voids where you really don't know much, or to substitute reality with this imagination, can bring you awful results.

Ukraine will only slip further and further into a big hole as this war rages on. Not only is Russia in a superior position in near every respect: GDP, industry, manufacturing, military aged males, population, Intel service size, military size...

Russia also is absolutely NOT suffering from any sort of morale issues regards this war:

https://www.norc.org/research/library/new-survey-finds-most-russians-see-ukrainian-war-as-defense-against-west.html

https://kyivindependent.com/poll-77-of-russians-support-war-in-ukraine/

Russia is not fully mobilizing may that be conscription or converting to a wartime economy. Russia is partially mobilizing. Even Ukraine still has a fairly large pool of military aged men they could tap into. Their conscription starts at age 25, but it may not be socially acceptable to conscript younger folks, down to 18.

Regards Russia: “only citizens who are currently in the reserve and, above all, those who served in the armed forces, have certain military specialties and relevant experience would be subject to conscription.” https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-62977634 (limited mobilization)

Russia is ramping up their war machine, spending about 6+% GDP (a balanced approach), while Ukraine, desperate, is sitting at 37% GDP for their war machine and running out of bodies. I'm not talking share of government spending from a federal budget, but percent (%) of GDP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures

Why does this matter?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_versus_butter_model#:~:text=%22Butter%22%20represents%20nonsecurity%20goods%20that,weapons%2C%20ships%2C%20or%20tanks.

As a nation focuses more on guns, the butter gets less and less. Ukraine is already a nation that cannot pay for their own government employees, retirements, health care, were it not for direct outside assistance (US and EU) infusing money and basic necessities month after month.

It is Russia that is in a sustainable position. Not Ukraine.

All the Russians need to do is keep the pressure on, which is what they are doing. Demographically, running out of new soldiers that can be conscripted, and economically trying to pour that level into ones war machine, cannot be sustained by Ukraine. But Russia can sustain where they are at.

Russia was never interested in conquering all of Ukraine. Why would they? Those areas that are majority nationalist would become a nightmare to hold.

All this babble of the Russians wanting to keep invading further and further, is literally “propaganda.” It is not even feasible, but it sounds alarming and gets people motivated to support the cause.

Likewise, Kiev was never a real objective. The Russians shot for Kiev in order to force Ukraine to dedicate reserves and other forces to the defense of the capital. It's similar to a feint. This made taking those areas which Russia does want to take and hold in Eastern Ukraine, easier. However, that does not mean that the Russians would not have sacked Kiev had the Ukrainians not reinforced the defense of this city.

The idea is simple: No one can defend everything everywhere at all time. You choose something of extremely high value to the enemy and which could possibly be taken in an attack. However, this is not really your main objective. When you go for this high value target you force the enemy to react. You force the defender to dedicate forces and equipment that they would otherwise be able to use against you as you go for the main objective. Divide and conquer.

So, as folks like you were celebrating the victorious Ukrainians holding Kiev and “kicking those Russian's asses” you were actually losing ground in Eastern Ukraine which Russia took and has been holding ever since. It made the taking of a port city and the heart of Ukraine's steel industry easier, Mariupol. It made taking the heart of Ukraine's industry in Eastern Ukraine, easier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_of_Ukraine

But you really don't have a choice. That's the problem when being put in a situation like that. Not dedicating forces to a hasty defense would mean you'd lose something even more important. You essentially get forced into a situation where you must draw forces off your main defense. And for the enemy attacking you, this feint is successful if it draws forces away, or actually takes the objective.

We do this too, and it can even be achieved without a single shot fired. For example, we are plussing up our personnel in the Balkans (Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia), conduct really big exercises, not because we are threatened by Russia, but because we are putting the Russians under pressure, making them react to our very public demonstration which causes the Russians to pull forces that could otherwise be used in Ukraine. So the Russians are forced to send thousands of men to twittle their thumbs along a border in the Balkan states.

https://news.usni.org/2024/06/05/nato-to-kick-off-largest-baltic-operations-exercise-to-date

When on the topic of tactics, a few things need mentioned.

1.) It is technological innovation which drives tactics (mostly). For example, the civil war era Gatlin Gun ended the idea of a frontal assault. A few Gatlin Guns can take out a lot of people coming your way in the open. Trench warfare began at the end of the US Civil War and was continued in WWI.

2.) The tank ended trench warfare and began the era of maneuver warfare by the end of WWI.

3.) Maneuver warfare was continued and perfected in WWII with the concept of the Blitzkrieg.

*** However, the tank in its current day form has been obsolete for a while. Against a modern military equipped with advanced ATGMs and RPGs, drones, and mines, the MBT/IFV/APC is at a disadvantage. The reason why the M1 or Leo for that matter stuck around for as long as they have, is because we were fighting third rate military's in the Middle East that are poorly equipped, trained, and usually are incapable of fighting a joint and combined battle. So, this obselete hardware was still survivable. However, in a battle with the Russians we are right back to trench warfare.

*** Furthermore, ISR in the form of satellites, drones, robots, balloons, high power thermal sights, GSR, is not only extremely capable, it is also proliferated and something that provides intel all the way down to the squad or even individual convoy as they move out. Capabilities that once were reserved for the most strategic levels and required national assets, are now providing this information down to a fire team or squad, using networks that provide this information in real time. What does that mean? Massing troops, trying you create concentration to achieve a penetration is difficult. This isn't WWII where the Germans can hide a huge force in a forest and surprise us in a Battle of the Bulge. That battle would never happen today. As soon as 4 or more tanks are sitting in close proximity, some sort of arty/missiles would be fired at that location.

Mechanized/armored warfare has a reduced survivabilty and concentration is hard to achieve. So what are you left with? Trenches: https://www.magicmurals.com/civil-war-trenches.html

What is sad is that there simply was no need for this. Any of it. There was no eminent security need either for Ukraine or the US which required Ukraine to join NATO immediately! There just wasn't: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/ This was a 100% avoidable war.

Nothing prevented us from continuing to provide military assistance to Ukraine, intel, foreign aid. Nothing was preventing us from training their troops like we had been for years. The course we were on was good for Ukraine and good for us. Why the course change?

When I started college in 1989 my father gave me a warning.

In his day and shortly after they had huge riots on college campuses in OH and elsewhere.

(he used slightly different words - it was a long time ago, but this is what he tried to teach me)

—He said if you observe carefully, you’ll notice that some of the folks that are behind these protests are not college students. These are folks brought in from the outside. These folks intend to mobilize people, to get them stirred up and willing to go on the streets.

—If you jump on that bandwagon you’re more or less a “useful idiot.”

To this day I remember his words when I think about what happens on college campuses: BLM (2019), free Palestine (2024), Bush lied people died (2005)...

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-credible-evidence-that-Ukraines-2014-revolution-was-due-to-a-CIA-coup/answer/Kylee-Smith-83

An intersting read. This gall put some time into this.

There is so much wrong with your write up that it's impossible for me to address all the errors.

India is not our friend. If they had to choose sides, they would choose Russia.

Nicaragua, where I have been, is aligned with Russia. You have it aligned with us on your map (green).

Brazil, Egypt and South Africa are green but in BRICS and they do not really like us all that much. Not even the blacks in South Africa like us (most are commie, tribal...) and especially the whites (whom we threw under the bus) have no love for us.

Belarus and Russia are about as close as two nations can get without engaging in sexual relations on the geo-political map. What are you talking about? A dispute that was resolved politically is now a threat of war and invasion? You're just making crap up!

Vietnam is controlled by the PRC and they do not like us. No different than PRC, they just want to do some business with us. They shouldn't be green.

Not even the Mexicans like us. If you leave the tourist areas, it's not a compliment when they call you a Gringo. We annexed their lands, treat their citizens like shit in our country, threaten outright invasion and military strikes because it's a good sound clip for some politician that is grand standing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD4kFxyHALo Recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dw1pcDoewY

Armenia has 10,000 Russian troops in their country and they are shitting their pants as the Russians are withdrawing these troops because they are needed elsewhere. Armenia has security issues and the Russians are their life-line.

To much to correct...

You live in an imaginary world.

When you deny reality, the physical realities around you, nature or physics, will eventually catch up with you.

Ukraine is already an abject failure. The only question now is how bad of a failure it will become and how we can exit this while saving face?

If you live in a dream world like Adolf did, and you keep going to the bitter end, that defeat will be a hard reality to deal with when it inevitably comes.

If you're smart, you look at geo-political realities like a business, maximize returns and minimize losses. You apply the concept of risk and ROI. But that is not how a government bureaucrat or politician thinks.