Suspect. When it's the Kremlin, it's reduced to geopolitics, heck they're defending themselves (i.e. excused), and hardly otherwise mentioned ("invisible"), despite their bombing, shamming, etc. When the Ukrainians + supporters are fighting to take back parts of Ukraine, then it's another matter, be it evil US deep state theories, Kyiv to blame, ... And Hiroshima + Nagasaki ☢ 1945...not geopolitics for you? — jorndoe

If you believe I 'excuse' the Kremlin you're simply not reading my comments.

My continual point is that Washington and the Kremlin are two apples of the same shit tree.

Because you cannot handle the fact that I view Washington as the same type of cold-blooded, calculating reptile as the Kremlin, you, just like many others here, feel like you must go looking for inconsistencies where there are none.

It's all very snooze inducing. When you all are done coping and ready to make some real arguments let me know.

The country is bankrupt and in shambles. No one is going to be held to account for the coming hundred years. That's why it is the perfect patsy. It probably plays the part willingly in order to secure more aid.

, that's called bribery, not an alliance.

You may characterize this as an alliance, but I don't. Various countries in the Middle-East have been made to do Washington's bidding out of fear, and Egypt is obviously among those countries.

Why do I say that?

Egypt is the most populous country in the Middle-East and it is a geopolitically critical regeion due to the Suez canal. It is the most obvious contender for regional dominance in the Middle-East. Yet, today it is nowhere near that position and has suffered turmoil, including turmoil as a result of US meddling.

That is because the US and Israel are doing everything they can to stop regional powers from rising up in the Middle-East.

US and Egyptian interests clearly do not coincide, and this "alliance" is a product of something else.

Anyway, perhaps it's a good time to evaluate where this Ukrainian offensive is going.

Decisive results that could justify the expenditure of vast amounts of men and materiel so far seem nowhere to be found.

This lack of decisive results makes it difficult for analysts to determine what the intended goal of the operation may have been.

Possibilities include:
- 'Spreading the Russians thin', ergo a diversionary attack to relieve pressure of the Donetsk front.
- Gathering chips for negotiations
- Occupying the Kursk nuclear power plant
- PR / Propaganda purposes

Of these, I find the last two options to be the most plausible.

'Spreading the Russians thin' is questionable on several levels. First of, to spread the enemy one must also spread their own forces, which, given Ukraine's position on the battlefield, is not something they can afford. Furthermore, Russian gains in south-eastern Ukraine continue unabated.

In terms of Ukraine's negotiating position, this has probably done the opposite of strengthening it. There's virtually zero chance the Russians would even consider negotiations while the Ukrainians hold as much as a millimetre of Russian territory. Furthermore, it has given the Russians an excuse to tighten the thumbscrews and increase their war goals.


The Kursk nuclear power plant seems to be the only item of strategic value in the Kursk region which may justify an offensive. The direction at which the Ukrainians have advanced seems to imply this as its possible target. Even so, it's unclear what the plan would have been after capturing this power plant, since the chances of Ukraine holding onto it for long would have been virtually zero, unless they were prepared to use the nuclear plant as a form of blackmail.

Lastly, and perhaps most plausibly, this was another PR stunt, just like the previous Ukrainian offensive - to show both domestic and foreign audiences that the war is not yet lost.

Time will tell.


Regardless of intended goals, what are the actual consequences?

The offensive follows the modern pattern of defense-in-depth, in which the initial offensive drive is not stopped but instead allowed to penetrate until it has ran out of steam and given clues towards its intended direction. A lack of strategic significance of the Kursk region allows the Russians this option. Meanwhile, scouts, light infantry and tripwire forces focus on attriting the offensive's manoeuvre elements.

In other words, regardless of how media may try to spin this, this offensive seems to follow regular patterns of how modern armies deal with offensives. If this offensive came as a surprise, there was likely already contingency planning in place to limit the damage. It's even possible the Russians were aware that this offensive was coming. Alexander Mercouris claims an unnamed source spoke of an attack like this two weeks before it happened, though that remains uncorroborated.

This offensive does however provide the Russians with an opportunity to attrit the Ukrainian armies' manoeuvre elements that were previously held in reserve. Media reports suggest the Ukrainians indeed are suffering heavy losses in terms of manpower and materiel. That is not necessarily strange for an offensive, since they are almost always very costly affairs, but it's also precisely the reason why an offensive must achieve decisive results.


Much in line with the apparent balance of power, this offensive is unlikely to change anything in Ukraine's favor. In fact, it seems counterproductive on many levels: expending one's crack divisions and manoeuvre elements on a strategically irrelevant region while elsewhere the frontline is collapsing seems foolish.

But perhaps the main problem for Ukraine is that this offensive into Russia makes negotiations virtually impossible. This further undermines the Ukraine's/the West's credibility in peace negotiations, which has already been tarnished by the fiasco in early to mid 2022.

And personally, that's what I believe the goal of this operation was: to make peace impossible for the foreseeable future.

We must ask the age old question:"Cui bono?" and there is of course only one actor that desires perpetual war in Eastern Europe: the United States.

Calling Egypt and Saudi-Arabia US allies just turns 'ally' into a vacuous term. Of course they are not allies - certainly not today. Egypt is in BRICS, and Saudi-Arabia is openly flirting with it.

I'm sure the US likes to believe they hold some kind of non-coercive sway over these countries, but that's just fantasy on their part. History shows what happens to indepedently-minded countries in the Gulf and the Middle-East, and Egypt and Saudi-Arabia just realized at some point their fates would be the same as Iraq if they didn't dance to Uncle Sam's tune.

But times are changing now.

Why do I bother commenting your absurdities and errors? — ssu

Sounds like you're looking for a cheap way out. You didn't even respond to the meat of my response, instead trying to pretend Saudi-Arabia and Egypt are allies or even friends of the US (which they obviously are not, if ever they were).

Japan during WW2 was a fascist menace. Of course they had it coming. That doesn't mean the nuclear bombing was justified, or that civilians weren't innocent/victims. The Japanese state/government clearly was not.

Not sure what point you believe you're making here.

I guess, by such logic, Japan had Hiroshima and Nagasaki ☢ coming, some 79 years ago (with a difference of not being a land grab). "That’s geopolitics for you." — jorndoe

There's an obvious distinction between a country and its government, and its civilian population. Countries and governments are not victims, since they are seldom innocent. Kiev made a calculated gamble and it didn't work out. It should not play the victim card but take responsibility for its failed foreign policy.

Anyway, I thought you blamed the US for it all. — jorndoe

Not for it all. Just for the lion's share.

Bibi knows just what to tell the Americans and when. For him Americans aren't a problem, [...] — ssu

I think we should be open to the possibility that it is in fact Netanyahu who is being played by US Congress. US Congress seems to know exactly how to play towards his narcissistic disposition, don't they?

For decades, Israel has been pursuing policies that basically guarantee its own destruction, while carrying out US foreign policy, namely sowing chaos and exerting influence in a region the US is unable to directly control.

Meanwhile, the US can exculpate itself from principal responsibility for Israeli human rights abuses and war crimes because "the poor United States is being dragged along by Israeli ultranationalists and their psychopathic leader".

Israel does all this without having any formal security arrangements with the United States. And we know what happens with nations that presume on special relationships. (Vietnam, Ukraine, etc.)

So who is being played by who here?

Uh, both Egypt and Saudi-Arabia are allies of the US. — ssu

They are really not, but there have been times during which the US attempted to placate them. Pretty much every nation in the Middle-East would be overtly hostile to the United States if it weren't for the threat of retaliation. Israel is the only real US ally in the region.

I'm not at all surprised that you think that the all the administrations from the Carter administration through Trump to Biden have behind them a "Grand Strategy"... — ssu

I'm not talking about the administrations obviously. Presidents haven't had any significant influence on foreign policy for decades. That much should have been clear from the moment a former actor became president.

In fact your idea of there being a "Grand Strategy" simply shows how little you know of how Washington works and how it goes through different agendas and strategies all the time. — ssu

Oh, sweet summer child. :lol:

It's not like US grand strategy is a secret. You can find hours upon hours of panel discussions by related thinktanks which provide a broad outline of what this strategy looks like.

Of course the US has a grand strategy. It's rather cute that people here seem to believe that formerly the most powerful empire on the planet runs on coincidence.

If we go to geopolitics, wouldn't then Egypt be a far more crucial link with it having the Suez Canal? Or simply Saudi-Arabia with it's position and oil reserves? — ssu

It's not like the US hasn't tried on both accounts.

Iran is particularly important though because it occupies the bottleneck leading to both the Middle-East, Asia Minor and Africa. That's where US and Israeli interests coincide, and there's no other power in the Middle-East that could fulfill that role.

Suez is not an unimportant bottleneck either though. And guess what we see there? Meddling by the Americans with chaos as a result, and of course decades of hostility between Israel and Egypt. After all, that which America can't control it must destroy.

Coincidence? I guess so, since apparently US grand strategy doesn't exist, and articles like 'A Geostrategy for Eurasia' by Zbigniew Brzezinski apparently don't exist either.

I'm honestly a bit shocked you would claim that US grand strategy doesn't exist, but all that means is that the US is being successful at hiding their agenda.

Don't let yourself be fooled though. It is not coincidence that keeps the evil empire afloat.


PS: Just to add, radical loonies like Netanyahu are the perfect patsies for the US. They can pretend a radical ally is 'forcing' them to be complicit in genocide, when in fact the US does and has always done these things out of pure power politics. Not the first genocide the US has funded, by the way.

↪Tzeentch, right, don't forget to blame the victims for looking to democracy rights transparency freedom (handy, so as to maintain a narrative). — jorndoe

Kiev is not a victim. It made its choices, and carries the responsibility for the consequences. It chose poorly and is now paying the price.

That's geopolitics for you. This isn't your average lefty echo chamber where terms like 'victim blaming' are used non-facetiously.

Current US grand strategy focuses on China, which is the obvious contender for global dominance (which Russia isn't), and the architects of this are the US political establishment/political elite/deep state, or whatever name you want to put on the people who run the show in the US.

The Israeli right and Netanyahu understood that for the US, the US-Israeli axis was far more than just an Cold War alliance. It wasn't the few million American Jews, but all the Evangelists who had a special place in their heart for Israel. And Bibi has been the best politician to use this totally exceptional relationship. I think he partly could be said to be also a de facto American politician. That's how well he can influence the US, even if he basically is a foreigner. — ssu

Hm. I'm honestly not one to ascribe a decisive amount of influence to interest groups and lobbies like the US Israel lobby.

I think Israel serves US grand strategy in that it gives the US a vital proxy in an economically important region. For example, Iran occupies one of three vital bottlenecks that connect China to Europe, the Middle-East and Africa overland. The other two being Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.

I think it suits the US political establishment just fine that Netanyahu, the Evangelicals, etc. take the flak while no one seems to wonder how come the most powerful nation in the world is (supposedly) being commandeerd by radical loonies.

In my view, it isn't. These groups are just the patsies, while the main driver is actual US grand strategy and the interest groups we believe are somehow causing this are just the vultures flocking to the smell of fresh carrion. The MIC functions in the same way.

↪Tzeentch, alternatively, (once again) you deny Ukrainian agency, presuppose that it's not that they want democracy rights transparency freedom and wrestle free from the dominating (regressive opaque authoritarian oppressive) neighbor, — jorndoe

I'm not denying the Ukrainians anything, though it would be pretty silly to expect NATO or EU membership to magically change Ukraine into a functional state.

Anywho, the one who denied the Ukrainians agency is the Ukrainians themselves, when they made the remarkably foolish decision to put their security in the hands of Washington, crossing known Russian red lines while doing so. That was honestly pretty fucking dumb.

Incidentally, you're echoing what came out of the Kremlin. — jorndoe

Reality reflects poorly on the West. One doesn't need to be a Kremlin propagandist to deliver scathing, accurate criticism of our conduct in this conflict.

Protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption, abuse of power, human rights violations,(91) and the influence of oligarchs.(92) — Euromaidan

It's the same old song: the US overthrows a democratically elected government for 'reasons' and then proceeds to create a mess several times larger, leaving the country in ruins.

You'd think that clear-minded people would wisen up to the charade at some point.

Widespread government corruption, abuse of power, human rights violations and oligarchs - , does this remind you of any nation?

Because to me this sounds exactly like the United States. :lol:

It would seem the Netherlands’ whole history would have had to be radically different in the 20th century for it to have a more powerful/independent position. — schopenhauer1

I think today's loss of independence started with end of the Cold War. That's when NATO and Europe's position with regards to the US fundamentally changed and Europe failed to notice (or noticed too late).

Before the end of the Cold War, the US couldn't afford to have weak, corrupt allies in Europe. After the Cold War that became the goal. Corrupt, porous democracies are easy to influence, and militarily weak nations are needy and pliant.

In my opinion, this loss of independence is primarily a result of US soft power, and therefore is largely a psychological phenomenon. Nonetheless, it is a psychological phenomenon that is difficult to reverse.

Keep in mind, it's perfectly possible to be a part of NATO, or even a great power's sphere of influence, and still maintain a high degree of independence, but that requires a robust, non-corrupt politicial system and skilled politicians. That's the main issue in the Netherlands currently.

"True independence" is doing what Russia wants, [...] — unenlightened

You are purposefully misconstruing my argument. If a weak country wants to be and remain independent, it must play its cards right. This is just the reality of geopolitics. And yes, sometimes that means placating the gorilla next door.

The suggestion that Ukraine was a slave to Russia prior to 2014 is just patently false. Its presidents manoeuvred between both sides, and did so fairly skillfully.

The problems arose when Ukraine's skillful diplomacy no longer suited Uncle Sam's agenda.

I live in Europe/a NATO country. We're literally a vassal of the US, with our politcians being literal stooges for the US. There's nothing independent about my country.

The term 'vassal' is often used to describe exactly that: a country that is allowed to govern its own domestic politics, but is expected to fall in line with the suzerian when it comes to foreign politics.

That describes the majority of NATO countries, including mine, accurately. (Ironically, it even describes the position of the American people inside the US - you're free to bicker over gender neutral bathrooms or which clown runs the White House, but in terms of foreign politics you have no say whatsoever).

What Ukraine did up until 2014 was true independence, and true independence relies on a proper understanding of geopolitics, and more often than not on the skillful use of diplomacy.

It was you that suggested that Ukraine was supposed to be neutral. If that is not the justification for the invasion, then it can only be that Ukraine is supposed to be part of Russia. — unenlightened

That the Russians desire a neutral Ukraine is something that they've told us consistently over the course of some 15 years, and it's something they reiterated even after the invasion started.

It was part of the agreement reached between Ukraine and Russia in Istanbul in March/April 2022.

So there is plenty of evidence that suggests that it indeed was the question of Ukrainian neutrality that formed Russia's principal justification to invade.

I would say that Ukraine was supposed to be independent. That is what we seem to disagree about. — unenlightened

I wouldn't disagree with that, actually.

The difference is that I don't see anything that is happening today as bringing Ukraine closer to that goal. NATO membership wouldn't constitute independence, even more so considering Ukraine is now so indebted to the West and corporations like BlackRock that it couldn't repay that debt in a hundred years.

What Ukraine had to do to remain independent is what it did up to 2014. It had to maintain good relations with both sides.

In 2014 it made the critical error of jumping in bed with the US.

And well, as I've said here before, jumping in bed with a crocodile to protect oneself from the crocodile across the border makes no sense at all.

Geopolitically they failed, and the US & Cronies ensured it would not be allowed to reverse it.

It's hard to tell whether you're being facetious or not, because these caricatures regularly present themselves as genuinely held beliefs among this forum's denizens.

The idea of invading a country to ensure its neutrality is something worthy of the British Empire. — unenlightened

The "imperialist expansion" narrative lost all its credibility literally one month into the war.

Russia spent over a decade trying to find a compromise with the West vis-á-vis Ukraine, and was continuously cold-shouldered by the West that perceived it as being weak enough to disregard. Even Minsk - an attempt at peace - was admitted by the West to have been agreed upon in bad faith and treated as an armistice to buy time for arming Ukraine.

Even after the invasion of 2022 started, the Russians were still looking to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table and showed little to no territorial ambitions.

But maybe your comment was a joke that flew over my shoulder. Such things tend to translate poorly via text.

In the long run, we are all dead. In the meantime, if one starts from the fundamental irrationality that the wasting asset of one's life is worth spending in a good cause, then one does not give up the hopeless cause, because that alternative is worse than failure and death. — unenlightened

Talks with the Russians / Ukrainian neutrality is a fate worse than death?

People who truly believe that are obviously brainwashed.

There were reasonable ways out of this conflict, and Ukrainian leadership, being so foolish as to take orders from the West and their double agenda, refused them all.

There's nothing heroic about that. It's folly. Though the deaths of so many men is tragic to be sure.

When the situation is sufficiently bleak, 'balanced' analysis just betrays an unwillingness to face reality.

Ukraine is strategically lost, and from such a position there are no tactical master strokes, unconventional military strategies or 'wunderwaffen' that can conceivably turn the tide. The worse one's situation becomes, the less options one has.

I think the problem is people watch too many movies.

You wonder why the Ukrainians ever bothered to resist at all. They must be crazy berserkers. — unenlightened

That's what propaganda and war do to people, unfortunately. They become radical, irrational and emotionally driven.

In fact, if I were to be particularly cynical I would assume such a state of mind is actively encouraged by those who would see a nation fight to the bitter end.

The Ukrainians were ready for peace in March/April 2022. The West made peace impossible. So when one wonders why the Ukrainians can be bothered to resist - well, what other options did the West give them?

Clearly this incursion is going to be crushed in time. The idea that it will keep the Russians busy when they're in need of rest is upside-down thinking; it's the Ukrainians who are overstretched, battered and in need of rest. Reportedly the Russians have several hundred thousand troops standing in reserve, so exhaustion is not a major factor.

If the previous years are anything to go by, the Russians were likely to continue their offensive actions throughout the winter anyway.

Ukraine's previous offensive was a failure from every military angle as well, but something that makes no military sense may still make political sense. The question is whether it will change anything for Ukraine and the answer is probably not.

Sad but true.

Seems to make some sense, what say ye? — unenlightened

Ukraine's actions in Kursk make no military sense. It's Ukraine that is strapped for manpower, ammunition, etc. They cannot hold ground, their cities are being surrounded and they are losing villages almost daily. Opening another front when already overstretched seems completely counter-productive at least from a military standpoint.

Mearsheimer had the following to say about it:

I don't understand what the military objective is. In fact, if anything, what this is gonna do is detract from their effort in the eastern part of Ukraine to stimey the Russian steamroller, which is consistently moving forward every day and attriting the fighting units the Ukrainians have arrayed on that eastern front.

What the Ukrainians should be doing with those forces that they sent into Russia in the Kursk area, is those forces should have been sent to the frontlines in the eastern part of Ukraine to buttress the forces that are buckling underneath the Russian steamroller.

It makes no sense to attack into Kursk. What are they gonna gain from doing this? Are they gonna, you know, help win the war? Not at all. So this is a foolish, last-minute gamble from my perspective, on the part of the Ukrainians, to try and turn things around. — John J. Mearsheimer

Personally, the most plausible explanation I have heard so far comes from Alexander Mercouris who reported the possible target of this incursion is a nuclear weapons facility located in Kursk. The goal would be to capture or otherwise threaten this facility in order to gain some kind of leverage over the Russians that could be used in diplomatic negotiations for an end to the war, of which the Ukrainians currently have none.

This would explain why this incursion is hardly covered in western media. This last tidbit is actually quite significant, because if we were looking at some form of Ukrainian success, we would expect the entire western media to fawn over it in an attempt to score some propaganda victory. The fact that we don't see that makes for an unclear picture of what this is/was meant to achieve. Perhaps the West wasn't onboard with attacks on nuclear facilities, which is what Mercouris also hints at.

Remember when the Israelis accused Hamas of brutality?

Israeli media airs footage showing alleged footage of Palestinian detainee

This is just an indication of what is currently going on in Israeli prisons. and this is what we, the West, are quietly approving with our 'ironclad support'.

I hope the Americans here understand this is what your Congress was applauding for only a little while ago. This is what your nation is stooging for.

So? The previous Ukrainian offensive was a costly failure, and that's probably what this offensive will turn out as well since it makes zero military sense.

The more apt question would be, how can Russia lose?

The Ukrainians don't need money. They need manpower, ammunition, tanks, etc.

Meanwhile, the horrible toll of the war has caused many in key demographics (military age men) to either be dead or flee the country, which compounds the crippling economic effects of the war.

At this point Ukraine is essentially a zombie that's kept alive solely by Western injections of funds.

It would be a mistake to believe foreign injections of capital can maintain a status quo. It's a short-term solution, but on the long run these injections damage the Ukrainian economy even further, which in turn will make it require more injections, etc. - a vicious cycle.

War is simply not the type of problem that one can throw money at in order to solve it.

My sense is that a total collapse is unlikely, unless the Russians dramatically shift their military operations to a more manoeuvre-style approach.

Probably they will stick to their slow & steady war of attrition, which leaves enough breathing room for the Ukrainians to stave off collapse.

Do you suppose that the Kremlin would have handed (what they (formally) consider³) a piece of Russia over to Kyiv at that time², after 8 years of efforts¹? Perhaps insist on a new Kharkiv Pact⁴? Didn't Mearsheimer (and Drennan⁵ by the way) argue that Crimea remains a critical geo-political-power-military asset to Russia?
Whatever the case, something here doesn't quite add up.

If Ukraine is neutral, and the West shows a sincere interest in peace, I think the Russians could have possibly been persuaded to agree to some sort of special status for Crimea.

But that was back then. Today it is unthinkable they would give back Crimea and the landbridge that leads to it.

Apologetics to make their (deNazification irredentist genocide⁶⁷ revanchist) stories fit your narrative? — jorndoe

You can find plenty of information about Ukrainian ultranationalism online. It has been a problem since the time of Bandera. Furthermore, ultranationalists are a favorite when it comes to staging coups and waging proxy wars. From a Russian perspective they're a risk factor for similar trouble in the future.



You may make of this what you will, but it's clearly present in Ukraine and likely the war has only strengthened these elements.

Do you suppose that the Kremlin would hand (what they now (formally) consider³) a piece of Russia over to Kyiv? — jorndoe

Now?

No, not anymore. At the onset of the invasion there was still a modicum of trust which formed the basis upon which Russia could agree to a neutral Ukraine holding strategically important territory as it had since the end of the Cold War.

After the West showed its unwillingness to negotiate and kept doubling down on "strategically defeating" Russia, etc. what little trust there was, was gone.

But the fact that even the status of Crimea was negotiable shows that the Russians weren't primarily interested in territory when they invaded, that was my point. Even now the Russians point towards the Istanbul Communiqué as a starting point for negotiations, though it is unlikely they will return Crimea and the oblasts they now occupy.

And what then of their deNazification irredentist genocide⁶⁷ revanchist rhetoric (again)? — jorndoe

Ukraine has had a long-standing problem with ultranationalism, and that problem has only increased since the start of the war. The Russians view that as a threat to their interests and to long-term peace and stability. This is why they talk about 'denazification'. They mean ultranationalist militias like the Azov Batallion.

The Kremlin hasn't really been revanchist in its attitude, though. If anything it's the West that has been looking to 'punish' Russia.

A peace treaty is a treaty that, if signed, ends the conflict. — Echarmion

A peace treaty ends the war, ergo the "armed" conflict - which is obviously what it was meant to do.

I'm pointing out false and misleading statements. — Echarmion

Why not start with your own? :lol:


But sure - you can pretend to yourself that the Istanbul Communiqué was a ceasefire or whatever - then you can pretend that you 'won the argument', which apparently isn't what you're trying to do. (lol)

On the list of clowns you go.

No, it wasn't. It was a draft peace treaty. But here you go again, bickering over minutiae because clearly you've got nothing better.

Look kiddo, this is a philosophy forum and people here make a sport out of trying to 'win arguments', and that's what you're doing, and it's worth no one's time. You're even wasting your own.

It's unsubstantiated insofar as it relies entirely on what you guess the russian intentions were. — Echarmion

In what world is a draft peace agreement "just guessing"? :lol:

Your compass about what constitutes evidence seems all over the place.

The insinuation that the document indicated a russian willingness to forego territorial gains completely is unsubstantiated. — Echarmion

The Istanbul Communiqué is a strong piece of evidence that points in that direction, so obviously it is not 'unsubstantiated'.

Whether you find it convincing or not is a whole other matter, and one that I frankly don't care about.

Your goal here seems to be to bicker over minutiae.

If you are even unwilling to give credit to people like Mearsheimer for accurately analysing this conflict over the course of a decade, you're obviously not interested in an honest discussion.

Well, no, they're trying to gobble Donbas up, switch flags entirely, call it their own, expand Russia, and have employed shamming (and :fire: more) to do so. — jorndoe

The terms of the Istanbul Communiqué did not include any territorial gains for Russia - not even Crimea.

Both the Ukrainian and the Russian negotiating teams signed this document.

The West blocked those agreements.


The "imperialist expansion" narrative lost all foundation literally a month into the war. Why are you still parroting it several years later? Repeating a lie in the hopes it may one day become the truth?

I didn't take offense, nor was my comment a jab at you. Rather, it was a general observation that interest groups get people to spread their propaganda willingly.

I myself just try to talk some sense into people. It is a thankless job that I wish I got paid for. :lol:

I hope you're not talking about me, schop.

But to respond seriously to your remark: Imagine paying people for that. Propaganda lesson #1 is to get people emotionally invested to such an extent that they will parrot bullshit willingly.

As you all bicker over which clown should get to play pretend in the White House, US Congress gave 50+ standing ovations to a war criminal, who subsequently assassinated the chief Palestinian negotiator while they were visiting Iran, bringing wider Middle-East conflict and a US-Iran war ever closer.

Don't you all realize how petty this shit is compared to actual things that are happening in the world as a result of your out-of-control government?

This thread is a living testament to how "they" win.

And before you ask who "they" are: have you ever wondered where all these wars keep coming from that no one ever asked for and were part of neither party's campaign?

"Criminal", "weird", "immoral" - what do these words even mean to people who live in a nation that's funding a literal genocide? :chin:

It seems Trump fits right in with the people who run the White House, but perhaps the reason he is so impopular is because he's not trying to hide it?