all 32 comments

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (23 children)

There is a lot of propaganda about what is going in in this war. Living in the west I am more suspicious of the anti Russia propaganda than of the pro Russia propaganda, but I'm sure I get both.

Do you really believe that Russia will lose this war? Obviously they will lose in the sense that they will get hit economically, politically etc. But do you think they will not hold any Ukrainian territory when it is over?

Why would they not update thier tactics to avoid the weapons that work? Do you think they can't capture and copy that tech? Do you see this as a war of money and manpower. What happens if China decides to put thier finger on the scale?

I don't think the globalists want Russia to lose. At least not a total loss. Russia is the boogie man they use to scare western sheep into compliance. Putin could very well be one of thier puppets and this whole war could be a strategic distraction and positioning of pieces to give them options for the future, like starting WW3 or whatever else they want to do to protect thier central banking cartel.

[–]Site_sux[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

Yes I believe Russia will lose, and strategically already have lost, this war.

I don't even think they'll still have Crimea when this is all over.

Russia are incapable of updating tactics or weaponry to match the demands of this war. The first because they simply don't believe in NCOs, the second because of brain drain and sanctions. Their major overhaul so far has been to simply die slower than during Feb.

And I don't believe in globalists or illuminati or freemasons or whatever, that's just silly IMO

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

And I don't believe in globalists or illuminati or freemasons or whatever, that's just silly IMO

I don't want to go into the weeds on this, but do you believe there are wealthy and powerful people who consider themselves residents of the world rather than members of a country? Who have no loyalty to any country and use thier power and influence to start wars that benefit them?

[–]Site_sux[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Not really, no. Maybe it's happened in the past. But not on a macro scale. To suggest that someone is pulling Putin's strings is ridiculous. He had a woman strangled on his birthday just because she wrote bad things about him. He used nerve gas and radiation poison on nobodies just to make a point to his underlings. This is not a man who has a boss or would take instruction from someone.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

My interpretation of globalists is not puppeteers pulling strings but advisors whisperimg in ears. The way Charlie schwab bragged about infiltrating many governments with thier "young global leaders".

Is it not normal for governments to be run by people who betray thier country for thier own financial gain?

[–]Site_sux[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Sorry I have no idea what you're talking about.

It says there on his wiki page that Charles Schwab paid for trump's legal defence during the special council investigation on Russia so it's quite possible he's wrapped up in this somehow, but the notion that a US equities trader is the power behind Putin - the richest and probably most powerful individual in the world - it's ludicrous.

Is it not normal for governments to be run by people who betray thier country for thier own financial gain?

Yes, in corrupt countries, but I'd argue that the embezzlers don't consider what they're doing a betrayal. If you want to know how normal this is, you can look at a ranking of data collected on this topic.

I think you're probably onto the fifties in that list before you find somewhere "normal for governments to be run by people who betray thier country for thier own financial gain" but even there the normality may vary

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

Putin - the richest and probably most powerful individual in the world

Meet Aladdin. Far more powerful than Putin. Even the US president is more powerful than putin. Putin has his own oligarchs that he has to appease. He also has a central bank in control of his countries currency. Who controls the central banks?

Trump is a billionair, why do you think schwab is paying for his legal defense?

[–]Site_sux[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Putin has his own oligarchs that he has to appease.

Patently untrue. The oligarchs answer to Putin or are killed. Like almost four dozen over the past few years

You can read Bill Browder's testimony in many places, this one gives a good background of why you're wrong

Who controls the central banks?

Not a difficult question, she's a very famous woman, Nabiulina controls the Russian central bank and she's been trying to quit since the war started. But Putin won't let her because he's in charge and knows she's a capable technocrat.

Trump is a billionair, why do you think schuab is paying for his legal defense?

How the fuck should I know.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

How the fuck should I know. Do you know? Did you think I would somehow know?

It's a rhetorical question. The point is that Wikipedia is not a good source of information. One should be skeptical of stories that don't make sense from sources that have a history of spreading propaganda.

[–]Site_sux[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Well wait, that's why you have a problem with it? Ok I clicked the source on the wiki page, it's written right there on conservative news wsj

Of course it makes sense. The guy's rich and trump gave a tax cut to the rich. The guy's conservative and trump was a regressive. Trump's a shakedown artist and this guy was willing to pick up the phone. There are a million reasons that make sense - the only thing that doesn't make sense is why you think him talking about connecting with young global leaders is proof of a conspiracy.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Putin is widely rumored to be the richest man on earth, but little of his wealth shows up on paper.

So rumors prove that I'm wrong?

[–]Site_sux[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Huh? What are you quoting from here - I didn't type that. Anyway I recall bill Browder saying exactly that. And Navalny saying exactly that. So they are two people who would say you're wrong. I don't even know what you're trying to argue. You think Putin is subservient to the freemasons? Can you offer a shred of evidence of that?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you want to know how normal this is, you can look at a ranking of data collected on this topic.

That is data on the perception of corruption which had everything to do with what the media says and nothing to do with how much corruption there actually is. There is no real data there about actual corruption. One only needs to look at what has been done to Assange to see what happens to those who reveal real corruption.

[–]raven9 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

They won't lose. The Ukrainian military are about to collapse. About a third of their army in the Lisichansk area just surrendered.

[–]Site_sux[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Maybe if you're reading the propaganda the Russians make to keep their soldiers engaged, you'd end up believing that. But everyone else can see this is already a massive strategic loss for putin, and time is on Ukraine's side.

[–]raven9 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't think you have the slightest clue what you are talking about. This is not some kind of regional squabble. This is the Russian leadership recognizing the existential threat presented by the greed driven psycopathic evil that most of us that live here in the west already knew is our so called leadership. A cabal of criminal liars that has dropped the veil and are not even pretending they care about diplomacy anymore. It is a fucking disgrace that any of them hold office.

So this is why Russia knows they can not lose because they understand what the consequences will be. They are fighting to protect themselves and they will nuke us all before they lay down and lose. They are going to take the territory they need to protect the Russian homeland regardless of any attempts to oppose that.

[–]Site_sux[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh hey I know you. You're the guy who made yourself look really stupid for believing a serb ethnonationalist fake news blog, then kept doubling down when it turned out the story was full of holes

I trust you've updated your worldview since and patched the holes in the old operating system?

Anyway I read this post a few times and all you seem to be saying is that Russia are run by a bunch of pussies who are afraid of the free open future (because their backwards country has no place in it). And don't make me laugh - the day putin orders a nuke attack will he his last on earth. If his own generals don't kill him the Chinese will. It's not going to happen

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

An interesting perspective on some things that might happen after the collapse of Russia's army.

Here're some things the author forsees.

  1. An increase in the west providing training and equipping programs to nations under threat.

  2. A total reposturing of Baltic defence forces.

  3. A rush to acquire the weapons which are winning in Ukraine - drones, nlaws, manpads

  4. A new MAD proposition, where the west will act a lot more confident towards nuclear armed states.

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

Yes. NATO will indeed increase their aggression if the Russian Army fails.

[–]Site_sux[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Who are your predicting that NATO will aggress upon after Russia collapses. And under what mechanism? I am only aware of Article 5 which is a defensive measure, is there some aggression clause I'm not aware of?

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

No. I'm just agreeing with the article you have posted. And what you yourself have said. Nothing more. You are absolutely 100% correct.

[–]minion531 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What if? Laff, that's hilarious. They already lost politically and they are losing really badly on the battle field. They can try to call the small area they have taken by committing atrocities, a win, but when you look at what it has cost them, it's really obvious they can't win. And all Ukraine has to do to win, is to not lose. They just have to never give up. We all know Russia ends up leaving with it's economy ruined, it's international reputation ruined, and it will be a far weaker country going forward. Keep in mind, California alone has a bigger economy than all of Russia. Laff, and more aircraft carriers too.