"primordially Russian territories" That term interests me. What would really be considered "primordially" given that Kiev used to be a Russian city since 1667? Lvov would escape that, but as I've been arguing western Ukraine has military value to Russia so I doubt it will escape occupation, regardless of all the excuses people come up with as reasons Russia wouldn't do so.
With regard to what Shoigu said about the war lasting through 2025, Alexander Mercouris said on The Duran video yesterday that if you read the original Russian about Shoigu's statement, it seems that he was talking about their "Action Plan 2025", not the Ukraine war specifically. I don't know, I can't find the statement as the MoD Web site is closed to access for me and I don't know if it was published on the Telegram channel. And he could also have been referring to the overall war against the US and NATO, although I suspect that will go on for much longer than Ukraine itself.
And of course once the Kiev regime has fallen, there will be months and months - if not years - of cleanup and Russian troops will remain, as I' have argued, so saying that the SMO will continue to and beyond 2025 doesn't really tell us anything about the actual length of time Russia expects the Ukraine military to be actually fighting. As I keep telling people, one has to parse Russian words very carefully because they are both precise and frequently deliberately misleading.
As for the Democrats hatred of Russia going back to Trump, I think that's reaching a bit. No doubt there are some in the Clinton camp who think that. But as Mercouris said in The Duran video, this is now a political problem for the Democrats - how to get out of the Ukraine mess without losing to the Republicans. They're scared that Biden is unsuitable to run again, so they're fractured on that score, they're scared of RFK Jr., they're scared of Trump or some other Republican winning all because of Ukraine. Since this is entirely because Russia can't be beaten, they think they have to keep funneling money and arms to Ukraine because, as Martyanov constantly says, they don't understand what real war is.
A lot of the pro-Russian analysts are beginning to voice the suspicion that the Biden administration will put US troops explicitly into Ukraine. The talk now is about "advisors" - of course, there already are "advisors" in Ukraine, albeit not "officially." But the talk about a "frozen conflict" brings up the concept of :"peacekeepers" and I expect that will be the next term used. Poland seems to be backing away from directly intervening into Ukraine and if that happens it will be left to the US to do so.
And Medvedev is right: if you officially put NATO "advisors" into Ukraine, they will be targeted, killed and used to justify an Article 5 or Article 4 (which is the more dangerous of the two Articles) intervention.
With what is the question, since NATO has no capability and the US won't be able to do so in less than six months to a year of force and logistical deployment - which Russia would then be forced to interdict.
I've learned not to guess what Russia's General Staff will do but to just opine about possibilities. A certain level of performance is presumed so the question's always being What next? The Donors are faced with a huge problem. The run-up to the new year will be place-setting quite likely, but again, quien sabe?
Richard, a similar ethic composition is very well described in “The Bridge over the Deins” by Ivo Andria”. It is a relaxing book about the life in a multi ethnic society and not so much focused on contemporary politics. Also Russia will have to deal with it soon in the former Ukraine. And Russia has a proven record to deal with multi ethnic constellations.
Agreed, Russia does seem to be able to avoid ethnic issues more than the US does. I am fairly sure that Russia will be able to deal with Ukrainians whether pro- or anti-Russian.
Richard first let me mention that really appreciate to find here my most valued commentators from b’s page. And yes, regarding ethnic confusions in the making by our beloved MSM, pauschalising all the way they usually do. I will write and post here from my experience I had in Yugoslavia and Iraq. In Yu you could not even use the term “gypsy” without risking to be penalised and under the presence of KFOR and UNMIK over hundred thousand Ahskali (Albanian speaking Roma) have been ethnically cleansed by KLA and their Supporter. In Bagdad our dear humanitarian missionaries haven’t had a clue who’s a Shiite or a Sunni. I’m very certain that in Russia similar ethnic rules apply as in YU. But I’m sure the human right hippies will pull this register, given their value & rules based illusions.
McCarthy is working a backdoor deal with the Dems about Ukraine funding.
It takes $24B a quarter to keep Ukraine's government functioning, never mind war material, which means the US will be on the hook for another 100B, $24B of political fighting at a time.
Thanks for linking to Pepe’s recent opus. It is getting ever more difficult to follow some authors...to find their where they’re posting. What strikes me most is his mentioning of “The collapse of parasitic empires” by
Nikolai Patrushev. He describes the sclerosis or the Enronitis of the locust infested mechanism of the World-bank and IMF dominated by the G7 on a hook of US financial system.
The Russian State and all people supporting it and all people simply against the war and all people concerned with simple justice and clarity should ALL be telling the Western people at every opportunity this simple message:
"You should be supporting the Donbas Ukrainians."
After that message all kinds of explanatories and elaborations, justifications, proofs, etc can be submitted but the basic message should not be lost within a massive grey wall of text, it should stand clear and simple: " You should be supporting the Donbas Ukrainians"
Yes, there are things so closely allied to this thought that it would seem hard to leave them out - such as 'Your fathers would be ashamed of what you are doing now'.
But they should be left out.
This is the age of the meme, the slogan, the one liner. That one line should be:
'You should be supporting the Donbas Ukrainians'
EVERYONE should be promoting this but none more so than the Russian State. Putin, Lavrov, Maria Zhakarova. They all speak well, very well, and are exceptionally intelligent.
They need to constrain their speech a little here, control themselves, and simply put out that meme:
' YOU should be supporting the Donbas Ukrainians'.
And, yes, the Russian State maintains they are now 'Russian' Donbas citizens. That's simply muddying the waters in this context at this time.
The intent is clear and we don't need to quibble especially as it is the filthy USA and Kiev who currently insist, of course, that they are 'Donbas Ukrainians'.
So do that. Me, you, they, everyone, get the message through the thick skulls before the lunatics have us: the brain dead sheep, wandering off to slaughter each other in some kind of WWIII or even a nuclear exchance.
'You should be supporting Donbas Ukrainians'.
THAT is what it is, was, all about.
We wouldn't and for quite a while neither would Russia, even and now, of course, Russia alone is doing it.
But most of the dead stupid Western world doesn't even know that is what it is doing.
And the dead stupid Western world has for 'leading intellectuals' and such even more deadly stupid people who apparently don't know, either.
But you know. And I know. And the Russian State knows.
"One newly-minted cretin - the British Minister of Defense - decided to transfer the British training courses for Ukrainian soldiers to the territory of Ukraine itself. That is, to turn [their] instructors into a legal target for our Armed Forces. Knowing full well that they will be ruthlessly destroyed. And not as mercenaries, but as British NATO specialists."
Apparently, according to the PM Sunak, this ain't gonna happen:
"Rishi Sunak
No immediate plans to send British military instructors to Ukraine, says UK PM " -- The Guardian 2/10/23
"No immediate plans" is that similar to 'it ain't necessarily so'? The ability to talk out of both sides of one's mouth simultaneously is a skill most duplicitous politicians exhibit - whether they do it persuasively is pretty hit or miss these days.
"primordially Russian territories" That term interests me. What would really be considered "primordially" given that Kiev used to be a Russian city since 1667? Lvov would escape that, but as I've been arguing western Ukraine has military value to Russia so I doubt it will escape occupation, regardless of all the excuses people come up with as reasons Russia wouldn't do so.
With regard to what Shoigu said about the war lasting through 2025, Alexander Mercouris said on The Duran video yesterday that if you read the original Russian about Shoigu's statement, it seems that he was talking about their "Action Plan 2025", not the Ukraine war specifically. I don't know, I can't find the statement as the MoD Web site is closed to access for me and I don't know if it was published on the Telegram channel. And he could also have been referring to the overall war against the US and NATO, although I suspect that will go on for much longer than Ukraine itself.
And of course once the Kiev regime has fallen, there will be months and months - if not years - of cleanup and Russian troops will remain, as I' have argued, so saying that the SMO will continue to and beyond 2025 doesn't really tell us anything about the actual length of time Russia expects the Ukraine military to be actually fighting. As I keep telling people, one has to parse Russian words very carefully because they are both precise and frequently deliberately misleading.
As for the Democrats hatred of Russia going back to Trump, I think that's reaching a bit. No doubt there are some in the Clinton camp who think that. But as Mercouris said in The Duran video, this is now a political problem for the Democrats - how to get out of the Ukraine mess without losing to the Republicans. They're scared that Biden is unsuitable to run again, so they're fractured on that score, they're scared of RFK Jr., they're scared of Trump or some other Republican winning all because of Ukraine. Since this is entirely because Russia can't be beaten, they think they have to keep funneling money and arms to Ukraine because, as Martyanov constantly says, they don't understand what real war is.
A lot of the pro-Russian analysts are beginning to voice the suspicion that the Biden administration will put US troops explicitly into Ukraine. The talk now is about "advisors" - of course, there already are "advisors" in Ukraine, albeit not "officially." But the talk about a "frozen conflict" brings up the concept of :"peacekeepers" and I expect that will be the next term used. Poland seems to be backing away from directly intervening into Ukraine and if that happens it will be left to the US to do so.
And Medvedev is right: if you officially put NATO "advisors" into Ukraine, they will be targeted, killed and used to justify an Article 5 or Article 4 (which is the more dangerous of the two Articles) intervention.
With what is the question, since NATO has no capability and the US won't be able to do so in less than six months to a year of force and logistical deployment - which Russia would then be forced to interdict.
I've learned not to guess what Russia's General Staff will do but to just opine about possibilities. A certain level of performance is presumed so the question's always being What next? The Donors are faced with a huge problem. The run-up to the new year will be place-setting quite likely, but again, quien sabe?
Richard, a similar ethic composition is very well described in “The Bridge over the Deins” by Ivo Andria”. It is a relaxing book about the life in a multi ethnic society and not so much focused on contemporary politics. Also Russia will have to deal with it soon in the former Ukraine. And Russia has a proven record to deal with multi ethnic constellations.
Agreed, Russia does seem to be able to avoid ethnic issues more than the US does. I am fairly sure that Russia will be able to deal with Ukrainians whether pro- or anti-Russian.
Richard first let me mention that really appreciate to find here my most valued commentators from b’s page. And yes, regarding ethnic confusions in the making by our beloved MSM, pauschalising all the way they usually do. I will write and post here from my experience I had in Yugoslavia and Iraq. In Yu you could not even use the term “gypsy” without risking to be penalised and under the presence of KFOR and UNMIK over hundred thousand Ahskali (Albanian speaking Roma) have been ethnically cleansed by KLA and their Supporter. In Bagdad our dear humanitarian missionaries haven’t had a clue who’s a Shiite or a Sunni. I’m very certain that in Russia similar ethnic rules apply as in YU. But I’m sure the human right hippies will pull this register, given their value & rules based illusions.
McCarthy is working a backdoor deal with the Dems about Ukraine funding.
It takes $24B a quarter to keep Ukraine's government functioning, never mind war material, which means the US will be on the hook for another 100B, $24B of political fighting at a time.
Thanks for linking to Pepe’s recent opus. It is getting ever more difficult to follow some authors...to find their where they’re posting. What strikes me most is his mentioning of “The collapse of parasitic empires” by
Nikolai Patrushev. He describes the sclerosis or the Enronitis of the locust infested mechanism of the World-bank and IMF dominated by the G7 on a hook of US financial system.
The Russian State and all people supporting it and all people simply against the war and all people concerned with simple justice and clarity should ALL be telling the Western people at every opportunity this simple message:
"You should be supporting the Donbas Ukrainians."
After that message all kinds of explanatories and elaborations, justifications, proofs, etc can be submitted but the basic message should not be lost within a massive grey wall of text, it should stand clear and simple: " You should be supporting the Donbas Ukrainians"
Yes, there are things so closely allied to this thought that it would seem hard to leave them out - such as 'Your fathers would be ashamed of what you are doing now'.
But they should be left out.
This is the age of the meme, the slogan, the one liner. That one line should be:
'You should be supporting the Donbas Ukrainians'
EVERYONE should be promoting this but none more so than the Russian State. Putin, Lavrov, Maria Zhakarova. They all speak well, very well, and are exceptionally intelligent.
They need to constrain their speech a little here, control themselves, and simply put out that meme:
' YOU should be supporting the Donbas Ukrainians'.
And, yes, the Russian State maintains they are now 'Russian' Donbas citizens. That's simply muddying the waters in this context at this time.
The intent is clear and we don't need to quibble especially as it is the filthy USA and Kiev who currently insist, of course, that they are 'Donbas Ukrainians'.
So do that. Me, you, they, everyone, get the message through the thick skulls before the lunatics have us: the brain dead sheep, wandering off to slaughter each other in some kind of WWIII or even a nuclear exchance.
'You should be supporting Donbas Ukrainians'.
THAT is what it is, was, all about.
We wouldn't and for quite a while neither would Russia, even and now, of course, Russia alone is doing it.
But most of the dead stupid Western world doesn't even know that is what it is doing.
And the dead stupid Western world has for 'leading intellectuals' and such even more deadly stupid people who apparently don't know, either.
But you know. And I know. And the Russian State knows.
So say it, everywhere every time:
'You should be supporting Donbas Ukrainians'
"One newly-minted cretin - the British Minister of Defense - decided to transfer the British training courses for Ukrainian soldiers to the territory of Ukraine itself. That is, to turn [their] instructors into a legal target for our Armed Forces. Knowing full well that they will be ruthlessly destroyed. And not as mercenaries, but as British NATO specialists."
Apparently, according to the PM Sunak, this ain't gonna happen:
"Rishi Sunak
No immediate plans to send British military instructors to Ukraine, says UK PM " -- The Guardian 2/10/23
"No immediate plans" is that similar to 'it ain't necessarily so'? The ability to talk out of both sides of one's mouth simultaneously is a skill most duplicitous politicians exhibit - whether they do it persuasively is pretty hit or miss these days.
Who knows? They're all a lying bunch of bastards!
There's that pervasive delusions that in the face of escalating threats of World War, Russia and China will blink and surrender.