Ukrainian War Developments

Phead128 said:

If CIA-controlled Russia attempts to joins NATO, then China should go to war with Russia to prevent NATO on it's doorsteps. An shared NATO border along China's northern border would be the biggest existential threat to China since the Mongol Empire and Xiongnu Confederation. China should go nuclear WW3 to prevent NATO on it's doorsteps.

Click to expand...

This is the only semi-credible winning outcome for the west IMO. Even without taking out Putin they could make a deal to let him control Ukraine (and possibly more) in return for support against China.

It would be a massive backstab from Russia. Fortunately the west don't seem likely to go down this route (at least publically). This war has basically meant Putin and anyone close to him is a pariah in the west, so we're good for a few years at least.

However there is no ideological reason that makes him anti-western other than NATOs actions. Hopefully Xi has made a deal with Putin so when he stands down, the communist party takes over.

sheogorath said:

In the looney bin that is the US, Florida will usually take the cakeView attachment 85657

Click to expand...

Carl Marx: but, but, but I was a German Jew!!!!
American Liberals: NO BUTS! You evil fascist nazi russian are all the same! You go down, you!

Richard Santos said:

NATO accepted the baltic states not because the baltic state feel threatened by russia but because that weakens russia to the only benefit of the only NATO state that matter.

Click to expand...

The EU offered "Russian-free" energy lines. They started these manoeuvres in 2015. So no russian gas and russian electricity for the Baltic states. This comes at high costs for EU and the inhabitants. An since 2017 the Americans supply Lithuania - port of Klaipeda - with LNG! So the Americans "kicked" the Russians out of the gas market.

The whole system of energy lines needed to be changed from Russian to "EU-Standards". The latest news is that the Baltics take Norwegian gas as replacement for Nordstream 2.

The Russians were not happy, because they had to build new pipes around the Baltics to get to the Kaliningrad enclave. That costs half a fortune. And they lost the revenues of the gas and electricity deliveries.

So the Baltics clipped most of the connections to Russia by themselves with the "help" of the US and EU. I think - just my opinion - that these actions are to be considered as an "Attack" on Russian interests at their front door. And a lot of trust was lost here. Who threatened first and who was threatened? Whose interests wer neglected or regarded as none existing? The US is an Empire, that expands his influence with brutal economical and sometimes army force without consideration for the interests of other countries.

In an interview - I cannot find it at the moment, NBC or BBC - Mr. Putin also stated, that before the collapse of the USSR the Baltics had 3 Millionen people. But after the independance of the three states only 1,3 Millionen. So al lot of Russians left the Baltics, their homes.

He said, that 25 Millionen Russians "woke" up in countries that were not Russia anymore. His concern was about these people. And that no one in the West would understand this huge task Russia still faces - to help and support Millions of Russians that do not live in Russia.

Regards
Koala

4Runner said:

I don't agree with this logic. If Mongolia says it is threatened by China, can Mongolia be allowed to join QUAD or AUKUS? Absolutely not. If Vietnam/Laos/Myanmar etc. do the same thing, would China allows that to happen without doing anything? The best choice for any small countries between opposing superpowers is to stay neutral. From real (hard) power standpoint, there are only three countries on this planet: US, China and Russia.

So the brutal fact is that those Baltic states have no choices. I know, life is not fair. Ask 50 million Americans at the bottom and you get the same answer.

Click to expand...

There is logic and to some extent historical facts behind what you disagree with.
A lot of small European countries got steamrolled by Germany during World War 2 despite being neutral.
And actually underscored their neutrality with weak militaries and no preparedness.
Meant absolutely nothing.
Got invaded anyways, on their own with no chance, brave or not.
Those painfull lessons were some of the main reasons which led to the formation of NATO.
Weak alone, stronger together.

Case in point: Ukraine today

Topazchen said:

Perhaps Russians should depose Putin, put the CIA lackey Navalny in charge and join NATO .Russias security interests would be taken care of

Click to expand...

Well, Russia DID apply to join NATO many time in the 90s and early 2000s.
I don't think the US would allow that.

Just imagine the pressure faced by any one articulating different views from the mainstream ones in the NATO land!


GOODBYE FROM **ASB MILITARY NEWS** ON COVERAGE OF RUS-US/NATO WAR ON UKR SOIL

In light of recent developments in the information-sharing community/OSINT & news— the team has decided to end our coverage of the Ukraine-Russia war. It’s too risky for some members of our team who reside in countries where authorities don’t tolerate people providing alternative coverage to the mainstream narrative and they refuse to take that risk. We hope you guys find good coverage elsewhere. We will continue to cover the Middle East as normal.

22 March 2022 - ASB Military News

They have removed all their postings in their Telegram Channel prior to 2022.03.22

* * *

New batch of Chechen fighters on their way to Ukraine for military duty:


Watch the interesting clip of war drum with typical Chechen music

Abominable said:

An alliance is just an agreement made on paper. If Russia invades Latvia or a Baltic country and threatens a full nuclear response if anyone gets involved. Do you think Americans are all going to agree to die in a nuclear war for Latvia? They'll finally do what they've refused to do so far in this war and sit down with Putin and sort out a deal.

The only real alliance in the western world is the Anglo-US one, and maybe a Franco-German one.

Click to expand...

That is why I said earlier, Russia can indeed roll over the entire eastern european countries and there is nothing NATO can do about it. They will most probably use tactical nukes, but guess what the first PONOS countries that would nuked by Russia are Romania, Poland, Germany(maybe) and Czechia. The sheer precense of US nuclear weapons is a direct attack on Russias security and nuclear capability with the presence of AEGIS ABM shields. The US would not do jack shit about it but would fight Russia until the last Estonian, Latvian, Polish, Romanian, Czech and Ukrainian. The goal is weaken Russia, destroy reputations and inflict damage until it can be divided into smaller bits. All that is because it is the richest country on earth.

ArmchairAnalyst said:

There is logic and to some extent historical facts behind what you disagree with.
A lot of small European countries got steamrolled by Germany during World War 2 despite being neutral.
And actually underscored their neutrality with weak militaries and no preparedness.
Meant absolutely nothing.
Got invaded anyways, on their own with no chance militarily, brave or not.
Those painfull lessons were some of the main reasons which led to the formation of NATO.
Weak alone, stronger together,

Case in point: Ukraine today

Click to expand...

So if they were allied with Britain Hitler wouldn't steamroll them? An alliance didn't help Poland.

America's strategy seems to be to sign alliances with as many countries as possible. China's is to develop strategic partnerships. I think China's is better in the long run.

Pakistan is a Chinese ally. If India invaded Pakistan unprovoked China would help. But if Pakistan provoked India into a conflict China wouldn't be obliged to help. That sort of arrangement is healthier because it doesn't give the smaller partner a carte blanche to start bigger conflicts.

Even after Ukraine if Putin doesn't continue provoking NATO, what happens if in 5-10 years Poland decides to elect a far right leader who wants war with Russia? He could quickly engineer a situation that allows him to trigger article 5. Is NATO going to go to war because of what Poland does?

Jingle Bells said:

That's typical "killing two birds with one stone" tactic. Zelensky sure is a sneaky tactician, destroying those disobedient far-right militias and smearing and damaging Russian forces at the same time.

He does have the black cold heart to be the next dictator of Ukraine.

Click to expand...

Isn't he one already? He's imprisoned his opponents and banned most political parties

manqiangrexue said:

Absolutely, if you were talking about America's desperate attempts to slander Wuhan.

Click to expand...

The problem with such rhetoric is that conspiracy theories are already a deeply rooted and rampant culture of the USA. Because they have "free speech", US people use their imagination at the spare time to come up with these complicacies that are much much much more imaginative and convoluted than anything the western MSM can every come up with.

The result of that is that any US/Western people who will believe in conspiracy are already so desensitized by their "long tradition" of conspiracy culture, that they are basically totally unimpressed by any of the MSM, and they ended up making their own versions.

And because the mechanism behind conspiracy making is basically a manifestation of people's worst fear, these Americans ALWAYS eventually lead their conspiracy theory's storyline back to the USA (what they called "Deep State"/"Establishment").

We need to look at and understand the social psychology aspect of this. Why has there been such a sub-culture hype with the gothic-Nazi-horror stream? It is because people are essentially power-worshipping. And "Death" is powerful, therefore subconsciously, people are attracted to powerful forces/ideas/personifications.

NAZIs are the most significant of these "Death" related symbology. Communism lived way too long, and thus feels much more closer to the "living" than NAZIs. Japanese suffered way too much under the nuclear bombs, which signified their human vulnerabilities, and thus also feels much more closer to the "living".

NAZIs, on the other hand, seem like an unyielding evil. In our collective conscious mind, it seems that we can only annihilate/erase it, but can't conquer it. It's a short living horrifying evil. We suffer greatly to annihilate, but never gotten the time to savor their demise, subjugation and submission. NAZIs either died as a unyielding real NAZI, or proven to be mere "mortal" who beg for life at the hands of partisans/Allies (and shown that their convictions are pretense and not real). This is actually one reflection I have gotten from watching "Coma and See"(Иди и смотри). In comparison, Communism lived long enough for us to see their flaws and decline, which are both very essential human characteristics.

Watch this part:

Nazism is horrifying.