"My opinion is Team Putin never anticipated that their European counterparts could be as evil as they’ve become..."
Agreed. This is why I think Putin was willing to essentially allow Ukraine to sign a deal that was basically "Minsk III" in March-April, 2022. He also wanted an early end to the war due to the uncertainties related to managing the impact of the war and the sanctions. Subsequent to the Ukraine roll-back of its agreement, and subsequent Western attacks on Russia, things changed.
This is why I believe those who quote Putin's speech before the war and early after the war - and even many speeches since where he talked about the almost-done deal don't understand that things have changed. Plan B is in effect - the plan the Russian General Staff drew up - probably in 2021 based on a long-standing contingency plan - when they understood that Putin's initial plan - also developed in 2021 - was inevitably going to be a failure.
Martyanov today commented on Colonel Macgregor's comment on Napolitano's channel yesterday:
"Colonel still thinks that Putin is some naive guy who waits for the political change in Europe, thus, for now, avoiding large offensive operations. Nothing could be further from the truth--Russia's strategic analysis is arguably the best in the world and nobody in Russia's Security Council has any illusions on the nature of European regimes and populations."
Napolitano himself doesn't get it; he still thinks Russia has no interest in taking over Ukraine. Neither does Mearsheimer. They don't understand that Plan B is in effect, not Putin's speeches before the war only talking about Donbass. They don't even remember the phrase "de-Nazification" which obviously can't be done without overthrowing - and controlling - western Ukraine.
Putin has moved on. Russia has moved on. The pro-Russian analysts for the most part haven't. As I said earlier, their believe in their analyses is unshakeable despite zero evidence except supposition and speculation and nitpicking Putin's speeches.
I disagree. I do agree that the UNSC is too heavily bent toward the West. It should be reformed so that the largest countries in each major region of the world are represented on it. Then the veto could be removed. Put the top 20 largest nations on the UNSC. That would be:
India
China
United States
Indonesia
Pakistan
Nigeria
Brazil
Bangladesh
Russia
Mexico
Ethiopia
Japan
Philippines
Egypt
DR Congo
Vietnam
Iran
Turkey
Germany
Thailand
Every region in the world is represented in that list. and about 5 billion of the world's population. It's highly unlikely that any "unilateral" decisions would be taken. If a majority vote or 75% vote is taken as authorization, no one region could veto the action. And the only way inaction would occur is if one or more regions disputed the action to be taken. Most countries in one region would go along with the region's leader in most instances (possible exception: India and China might disagree; but India might be offset by Iran and Pakistan, or China by Vietnam and Thailand or Japan.) So the US might be supported by Japan and Germany but unlikely by anyone else. And so on.
If such an arrangement can't work, then no arrangement can work, in my view - and that's quite possibly the case, given the way nations behave. But it should be tried. The current UNSC does not work, that's clear.
It doesn't matter who is on the list for the UNSC - the same globalists call the shots from behind the scenes. I notice the Brits are missing from your list... that made me laugh out loud.
The Brits fancy themselves globally important and your idea, good though it is, would go down like a lead balloon in Black Nobility circles!
Who cares? If the UNSC is reformed, Britain becomes just another member with no influence in the UNSC. Britain is actually the next country down in the list of largest population IIRC; they're number 21. If you increase the list to the top 25, they're next. But why bother? The top 20 represents 5 billion people and every major region.
The globalists may call the shots in many countries, but not in China and not in Iran and not in Russia. And so far many of the remaining countries in the top 20 are aligning with those three. So Britain and the West's globalists would be rendered irrelevant.
And if that doesn't prove to be the case, which would not surprise me at all, well, you know my answer to that: a bullet in the head of the globalists and anyone else in power anywhere. If people aren't prepared for that process, then everyone deserves what they get.
"My opinion is Team Putin never anticipated that their European counterparts could be as evil as they’ve become..."
Agreed. This is why I think Putin was willing to essentially allow Ukraine to sign a deal that was basically "Minsk III" in March-April, 2022. He also wanted an early end to the war due to the uncertainties related to managing the impact of the war and the sanctions. Subsequent to the Ukraine roll-back of its agreement, and subsequent Western attacks on Russia, things changed.
This is why I believe those who quote Putin's speech before the war and early after the war - and even many speeches since where he talked about the almost-done deal don't understand that things have changed. Plan B is in effect - the plan the Russian General Staff drew up - probably in 2021 based on a long-standing contingency plan - when they understood that Putin's initial plan - also developed in 2021 - was inevitably going to be a failure.
Martyanov today commented on Colonel Macgregor's comment on Napolitano's channel yesterday:
"Colonel still thinks that Putin is some naive guy who waits for the political change in Europe, thus, for now, avoiding large offensive operations. Nothing could be further from the truth--Russia's strategic analysis is arguably the best in the world and nobody in Russia's Security Council has any illusions on the nature of European regimes and populations."
Napolitano himself doesn't get it; he still thinks Russia has no interest in taking over Ukraine. Neither does Mearsheimer. They don't understand that Plan B is in effect, not Putin's speeches before the war only talking about Donbass. They don't even remember the phrase "de-Nazification" which obviously can't be done without overthrowing - and controlling - western Ukraine.
Putin has moved on. Russia has moved on. The pro-Russian analysts for the most part haven't. As I said earlier, their believe in their analyses is unshakeable despite zero evidence except supposition and speculation and nitpicking Putin's speeches.
"It is unrealistic to abandon the veto."
I disagree. I do agree that the UNSC is too heavily bent toward the West. It should be reformed so that the largest countries in each major region of the world are represented on it. Then the veto could be removed. Put the top 20 largest nations on the UNSC. That would be:
India
China
United States
Indonesia
Pakistan
Nigeria
Brazil
Bangladesh
Russia
Mexico
Ethiopia
Japan
Philippines
Egypt
DR Congo
Vietnam
Iran
Turkey
Germany
Thailand
Every region in the world is represented in that list. and about 5 billion of the world's population. It's highly unlikely that any "unilateral" decisions would be taken. If a majority vote or 75% vote is taken as authorization, no one region could veto the action. And the only way inaction would occur is if one or more regions disputed the action to be taken. Most countries in one region would go along with the region's leader in most instances (possible exception: India and China might disagree; but India might be offset by Iran and Pakistan, or China by Vietnam and Thailand or Japan.) So the US might be supported by Japan and Germany but unlikely by anyone else. And so on.
If such an arrangement can't work, then no arrangement can work, in my view - and that's quite possibly the case, given the way nations behave. But it should be tried. The current UNSC does not work, that's clear.
It doesn't matter who is on the list for the UNSC - the same globalists call the shots from behind the scenes. I notice the Brits are missing from your list... that made me laugh out loud.
The Brits fancy themselves globally important and your idea, good though it is, would go down like a lead balloon in Black Nobility circles!
Who are the Black Nobility?
See this: https://francesleader.substack.com/p/black-nobility-101
Who cares? If the UNSC is reformed, Britain becomes just another member with no influence in the UNSC. Britain is actually the next country down in the list of largest population IIRC; they're number 21. If you increase the list to the top 25, they're next. But why bother? The top 20 represents 5 billion people and every major region.
The globalists may call the shots in many countries, but not in China and not in Iran and not in Russia. And so far many of the remaining countries in the top 20 are aligning with those three. So Britain and the West's globalists would be rendered irrelevant.
And if that doesn't prove to be the case, which would not surprise me at all, well, you know my answer to that: a bullet in the head of the globalists and anyone else in power anywhere. If people aren't prepared for that process, then everyone deserves what they get.
As a Brit, I thoroughly endorse this message! 💙💜
Thanks. And thanks for becoming a new subscriber.
Oh, he was angry allright. Rightly so.
School of Hard Knocks, another year or so.