Glimpses of an endgame in Ukraine

submitted by chakokat from indianpunchline.com

all 17 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun

[–]kingsmegLiberté, égalité, fraternité 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Russia's victory over Ukraine was a foregone conclusion way back on Feb 24, '22. Even USA military planners knew Russia would win, if the 3 Stooges (Blinken, Nuland, Sullivan) didn't.

It was also pretty predictable that NATO would cower behind proxies and be afraid to engage Russia directly. It seems Russia itself is losing its fear of NATO, as Wunderwaffen burn on the steppes of Ukraine. Still, they're not trying to provoke a shooting war with NATO because of the costs, that would involve putting Russia on war footing and conducting a full mobilization. Russia has the ability, and will do so if threatened, but they'd rather not.

the battle-hardened Russian army backed by a powerful defence industry and a robust economy will not hesitate to confront NATO member countries bordering Ukraine if they trespass on Russia’s core interests, which means that Russia’s core interests will not be held hostage to Article 5 of the NATO Charter.

What is not a foregone conclusion is the economic war, the USA and so-called West against Russia, and the BRICS+ against USA and their attempt to de-dollarize and break the USA's control of the worldwide financial system. I believe this war started for real under Obama, when he threw the rule of law under the bus and protected the banksters in the wake of obvious fraud that nearly collapsed the entire world's financial system. From that point on, everyone knew that USA could not be trusted to control the world's banking, because you don't put the fox in charge of the henhouse. The question is: can the rest of the world create alternatives while dealing with US terrorism, both financial and the bloody kind, and how much will USA escalate as they see control slipping away from them?

So we're left with fear and hope that perhaps the 3 stooges aren't really in control of USA, because if they are, we're all fucked.

[–]FThumbv3 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah yes, nice deception comrade. Keep lying to the Americans! You're commended for your fascism (Just don't tell them we're fascist)!

[–]sdl5 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We fucked- Nuland just got promoted to more power 😶😡😔

[–]shatabee5 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

an anti-Russian state will not be allowed.

That's the bottom line.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

an anti-Russian state will not be allowed.

Notice that the phrasing used does not rule out a state that is not pro-Russia.
Just not anti.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I think that the time for that is done, and Putin won't be satisfied with anything less than a pro-Russian friendly state. The problem is that he cannot trust NATO and the US from just trying again in a few years with another "color revolution". Putin needs a pro-Russia government in whatever is left of west Ukraine, one which will actively resist the US and EU.

I think that Putin was genuinely shocked to learn about the EU's perfidy. First Angela Merkel, then François Hollande, admitted that nobody on the west Ukraine side of the deal intended to uphold the Minsk agreements. Since confirmed by Petro Poroshenko (ex Ukrainian president), and later by Volodymyr Zelensky.

Given that, how could Russia possibly trust a deal made by west Ukraine, NATO, France, Germany and especially not the UK or USA?

The fact is, the west has negative credibility when it comes to living up to their promises.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I think that the time for that is done, and Putin won't be satisfied with anything less than a pro-Russian friendly state.

That seems like a watered down version of the New Domino Theory that has been banded about -- "If we do not stop Putin here, he will take half of Europe."

The problem is that he cannot trust NATO and the US from just trying again in a few years with another "color revolution".

What's to stop them from doing that in a "pro-Russian friendly state"?

It looks to me that having some decidedly Neutral Territory, that prides itself on staying out of this, would be best for whichever side is actually not expansionist. And much better for the Neutral Territory. Ideally, neither side is actually expansionist, and is just worried about the perceived expansionism of the other.

Having a Federation/Romulan-type "Neutral Zone" would seem to be beneficial. Except for someone actually expansionist.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What's to stop them from doing that in a "pro-Russian friendly state"?

They can try, but it's much easier to engineer a revolution when the government is neutral than when it is actively on guard against you.

It looks to me that having some decidedly Neutral Territory, that prides itself on staying out of this, would be best for whichever side is actually not expansionist.

That's been Russia's position towards the former states of the USSR since 1991: stay militarily neutral, don't threaten us or form aggressive alliances with those who threaten us, and you can do whatever you want. But the US reneged on their "not one inch" promise to Gorbachev, and since then has been squeezing Russia's borders and grinding away on their allies. Russia, bankrupted by the IMF and World Bank "Shock Treatment" in 1991, was unable to do more than grit their teeth and bend over.

Until now.

(I've heard anecdotes that Yeltsin, America's favourite drunk, was reduced to literally begging the American ambassador to stop moving NATO troops into Russia's essential security zone.)

Right up to Feb 2022, Russia's position on the breakaway Ukrainian republics of Donetsk and Luhansk was to support them so they would not be defeated militarily, but not to officially recognise them, which means that they were leaving the door open to a peaceful settlement. If Ukraine would stop killing ethnic Russians, give Donbas a measure of self-determination, and agree to remain neutral, Russia would support a peaceful resolution to the civil war that returned Donbas to Ukrainian control.

But three times (Geneva and twice in Minsk) the west and Ukraine betrayed Russia and they've now had enough.

Merkel stated that Russia “could easily have overrun” Ukrainian troops in 2015 and that NATO couldn't have done much to stop them. But the western states and Ukraine never intended to negotiate honestly. Former Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko called the Minsk agreements "a ruse".

Given that level of deceit and deception by the west, there is no agreement they can sign, no promise they can make, no assurances they can give, that will assure Russia that any peace treaty will be worth the paper it is written on. The Ukrainian war will end when Ukraine is neutralised as a threat.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

it's much easier to engineer a revolution when the government is neutral than when it is actively on guard against you.

A government could be neutral and still be actively on guard against everybody, in protection of their neutrality.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

A government could be neutral and still be actively on guard

"Could be", but in practice, you are naturally more on guard against those you consider to be The Enemy or at least potentially hostile, and less so against those you consider to be allies or friends or partners.

I can only think of one country in the world that is "neutral but on guard against everyone equally" and that's North Korea.

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can only think of one country in the world that is "neutral but on guard against everyone equally" and that's North Korea.

Well, they haven't had any "color revolutions"....

[–]Xeenophile 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

What makes a zone turn Neutral? Lust for gold? Power...?

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Tell their people... I said hello.

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

One more sign of how thoroughly emasculated the entire world has become.

In any other era Putin's ambitions would be considered pathetic, even unworthy, because of how modest and reasonable they are.

But today, he's called Hitler.

[–]weavilsatemyface 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

In Russia, most of the criticism of the invasion is coming from people who want Putin to stop pussy-footing around with a Special Military Operation, declare a real war, and go in and get the job done even if it means razing Kiev and Lviv to the ground, and fuck NATO if they don't like it. Go all "Shock and Awe" on the Ukrainians, like the US did to Iraq.

Their argument is, why should Russian soldiers die to protect the lives of enemy civilians?

Personally, I think Putin is right to prosecute this with caution. Aside from the humanitarian aspect -- Ukrainians are nearly human 😉 -- NATO is run by delusional psychopaths, but they're delusional psychopaths with nuclear weapons who could ruin your whole day if spooked. "Move slowly and cautiously when facing a madman with a gun" is common sense. Remember that the US has no legal prohibition on first use of nuclear weapons.

The other aspect where Putin is right is that Russia is winning the war of logistics. For every day the war goes on, Russia continues to disarm NATO and prove their much vaunted "game changers" are not anywhere near as good as they claim. I'm sure they can't wait to have the opportunity to take on some Challengers and Abrams tanks.

[–]BlackhaloPurity Pony: Pусский бот 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

their much vaunted "game changers" are not anywhere near as good as they claim

Ouch! Right in the MIC. The BRICS are going to load up on S400s. Nothing like a bunch of smoking Leopards, to sell Ruskie hardware and crash NATO arms sales outside NATO.

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That idiot Fukuyama convinced so many other idiots they could earn shiny medals forever blowing up goatherds with $30m drones.

 

Wait, nation-state conflict might still be a thing?! Um... hey Russia new rule, blowing up $13b carriers with hypersonic missiles is cheating