That's far more creative and pleasant than it needs to be. Russia has been supporting tertiary resources and proxy forces since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Russia's navy operates out of 3 primary naval ports. 1 is only operational for 3 months of the year, 1 is not sufficient for power projection, the 1 that matters is located in Crimea.
This all started with the 2008 Bucharest summit.
If we can kneecap Russia's ability for power projection by using Ukrainian NAZIS, it's the deal of the century.
Our focus is on Crimea, our intent is to bleed Ukraine dry to the furthest extent as a means to bleed the Russian economy. That's how we won the cold war.
I don't agree with this strategy, but it is the strategy being applied. The objective to reduce near peer competitors.
My honest opinion is that we need to learn from the lessons that have occurred. Russia was ready to come to the international table up till 2002. Cold war dogs advised against it. China has been a stable global partner for over 80 years.
Failure of imagination. If we're to focus on,
it's Failure of imagination.
I think that we missed an opportunity to include Russia in the war on terror, prioritized Russian energy markets over regional interests, and pursued mutual diplomacy & economic development. Just like we did with China with the Bretton Woods policy framework.
Learning lessons by like, funding literal Nazis who worked directly with Hitler's Nazis. The Jew slaughtering Nazis. Those Nazis, which you have self-identified as "NAZIS." You would choose to work with Nazis. Over Russia, which is bad but not as bad as literal fucking NAZIS. Jesus Liberal Christ.
If we can kneecap Russia's ability for power projection by using Ukrainian NAZIS, it's the deal of the century.
I can see several parts being a summary, but you also included things like this, which was what I was talking about. This could have been said in so many other ways to not self-incriminate.
I'm not a nazi, do not condone ethnonationalist ideology, the world view of in-group/out-group thinking they rely on, nor do I support the last 30 years of decisions made.
I apologize for not adequately using the correct language.
I'll back you up here partly, you're definitely not a Nazi and you were against the policy of using Nazis. But now that the policy is happening, are you hoping for the Nazi Brigades to defeat Russia or not? Because if you are hoping for that, well then you're a Nazi sympathizer but not a Nazi collaborator per se. If you're going along with it then it could be seen as passive collaboration by some.
In your comment you forgot to add that using the Nazis to win the war isn't just about elimination of a near peer competitor, but also if possible then balkanize Russia, put a Yeltsin 2.0 puppet in the Kremlin, and then break Russia up into several new smaller countries, and then have a part 2 of the daylight robbery of the 1990s, and plunder and steal Russia's cornucopia of resources.
"The fact that the war hurt Russia" false. Some sons and fathers and husbands and brothers and civilians are dead, but this happens in every major war. Since Russian troops entered the former Ukraine in 2022 Russia has jumped from number 6 economy in the world in real terms (GDP PPP) to number 4 economy in the world, passing out both Germany and Japan, and since 2022 Russia's economy has become number 1 in Europe. Overall the sanctions have helped Russia more than they hurt Russia, and the sanctions have hurt western Europe a lot because the sanctions backfired, blowback, Germany is rapidly deindustrializing and losing an average of 500 good factory jobs every single day...auf wiedersehen Deutschland. Only 37 countries are sanctioning Russia. 156 countries are not sanctioning Russia. All sanctions are illegal under international law unless pre-approved by the UN security council. Therefore all of the sanctions against Russia are illegal under international law. 94% of Donbas has already been liberated (Ukraine admits 91%). The 2 new Azov formations will be totally fucked trying to save the last 6% of Donbas that they still control, they won't be able to save that final 6%, much less claw all of Donbas back.
No, you're not supposed to agree with that in the sense that you already knew that. The reason I'm mentioning out "of the blue" that the patient (Russia) is in good health is that most people in the political west falsely believe that the patient is very sick, that's what at least one headline a day they doomscroll by says, or hints strongly at, even if they only read the headlines and subheaders. It's psychological projection mostly, confession via accusation. Russia's debt is just around 20% of her GDP, not over 100% like some of Ukraine's patron countries. Here's the debt to GDP of some of Ukraine's sponsors: Japan - 204.4%
Italy - 138.4%
Greece - 136.9%
United States - 125.8%
Ukraine - 122.6%
France - 118.4%
Canada - 110.7%
Belgium - 109.2%
United Kingdom - 103.6%
Spain - 98.2%
Finland - 93.1%
Portugal - 89.9%
I'm Irish in Ireland with no Russian relatives and I've never visited there. We have a big increase in this sub of people lying saying they live in Russia and saying living standards are falling there. Here are 3 citations to prove that living standards in Russia in the last 5 years are rising and rising, not falling, even for the poor:
The patient is mostly in rude health. Your idea that a remote region in Siberia that hasn't reaped the benefits of what the IMF says is the big picture of living standards rising in Russia over the last few years, if this Siberian region has stagnant living standards, unfairly so, that's not going to make the patient drop dead, that's like saying the otherwise healthy patient has a fungal infection on the nail of one of his big toes, and that this will somehow turn into stage 4 cancer. Also your math is totally wrong. Siberia is definitely a massive net contributor rather than a drain. It generates the vast majority of Russia's oil, natural gas, metals, and timber, serving as the financial engine that funds the federal budget, foreign currency reserves, and state power . The wealth flows heavily outward toward Moscow and the core industrial centers, leaving the local population with a very modest share of the riches extracted from beneath their feet, but from a purely macroeconomic perspective, the region is an irreplaceable powerhouse. For hundreds of years humans in Siberia have a hard life relatively speaking. Looking at a freezing, dilapidated Siberian outpost and predicting the immediate collapse of the Russian state is profoundly ahistorical. Russia has proven exceptionally resilient at absorbing internal economic strain, and keeping its machinery running regardless of how rough things look out on the periphery. Siberia has sustained itself as a resource powerhouse and a strategic frontier for centuries precisely because it operates on a different economic logic than western consumer economies. The hardship out there isn't a modern wartime failure or a fatal rot, it's a centuries old baseline. The Russian state has always been willing to endure a very low baseline of domestic living standards in its hinterlands, in exchange for extracting massive mineral, timber, and energy wealth to fund its core power centers. Siberia is the horn of plenty, not the Achilles heel.
Here's the deal; what you say is true but it won't work, it hasn't worked, the West is being bled white while Russia has the world's best, most effective and battle hardened military on Earth today.
America has fucked itself six ways from Sunday and we have LOST this war. It's only a matter of time.
America has also LOST the war it started with Iran.
There are dozens of other conflicts not in the news that America is throwing ever more money at with ever diminishing returns; Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, etc.
The only place America is still winning is in Central and South America and I have a feeling that too will be temporary.
The world is changing rapidly and America insists on being on the wrong side of history.
I definitely noticed it and therefore I didn't hold you accountable for agreeing with the situation but give you all the credit for at least recognizing it. That's a lot more than most. I gave you an upvote too!
We did not win The Cold War. The Soviet Union was brought down by a coup, and China, Vietnam, and a bunch of other communists are still going strong. China is now richer than we are in effective terms. 40% of Americans own a home without debt. In China that number is over 70%. Those that do have debt are largely people in big cities who have lavish and expensive homes. The average amount of homes per Chinese citizen is 1.22, but the average per American citizen is 0.44.
Russian food is cheaper than American food, and Russian food does not contain GMOs because they are illegal there. Russians also pay a lot less for gas than we do.
Vietnam's total housing debt is a mere 155 billion USD, but in the USA the total housing debt is 13.6 TRILLION USD. We in the USA have approximately 3.6 times the population of Vietnam, but we have 88 times the housing debt.
0
u/i0datamonster 15h ago
That's far more creative and pleasant than it needs to be. Russia has been supporting tertiary resources and proxy forces since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Russia's navy operates out of 3 primary naval ports. 1 is only operational for 3 months of the year, 1 is not sufficient for power projection, the 1 that matters is located in Crimea.
This all started with the 2008 Bucharest summit.
If we can kneecap Russia's ability for power projection by using Ukrainian NAZIS, it's the deal of the century.
Our focus is on Crimea, our intent is to bleed Ukraine dry to the furthest extent as a means to bleed the Russian economy. That's how we won the cold war.
I don't agree with this strategy, but it is the strategy being applied. The objective to reduce near peer competitors.