Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,327 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 15 hours, 21 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Moscow will want Transnistria, and Transnistria too, which Moldova won’t accept. So the next step will be the taking of Moldova.
They want to take the whole Eastern Europeans region like the Soviet Union did after WW2 with the pretext of the struggle against Nazism
Then that would lead to nuclear war, because those countries are now in NATO … The very thing you said won’t happen!
If ALB is correct in saying former Captain Ben Wallace is suggesting that NATO should March on Moscow, he’s not only a fool, he clearly never studied the work of Montgomery when he was at Sandhurst.
Montgomery said “the first law of military strategy is Don’t March on Moscow”. Although Montgomery was a vain, opinionated, racist )and possible Penderast). I’d rather trust him in terms of military strategy than the jumped up fuckwit who currently holds the office of Minister of Defence.
Marching on Moscow would take how long? 120 seconds after he sets off, nuclear missiles would obliterate London, Paris, Berlin, Warsaw etc.
Who’s the one living in the 19th century?
Exactly. That’s why NATO won’t do it. Captain Wally is just a windbag like Truss and Borys. But it is still dangerous and provocative talk with the malign aim of prolonging the killing and destruction.
Looking at the serried ranks of trained killers marching past Putin and his generals this morning, I couldn’t help wondering how NATO thinks that Ukraine has any chance of defeating Russia in the end, even with NATO weapons. The Ukrainian armed forces are maybe a couple of rungs above the Afghan army NATO put together but they seem to be an uncoordinated collection of professional soldiers, militias and people who until a month or so ago couldn’t tell one end of a rifle from another. I bet they can’t even march in step, part of training a disciplined army composed of killers who will obey without thinking.
My guess is that if Putin wants the Donbas he will get it. Might is right. That’s the way of the world under capitalism.
Then that would lead to nuclear war, because those
countries are now in NATO … The very thing you
said won’t happen!I did not say that it is going to happen. It has been in their mind since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the other band want to take all of them to their spheres of influences
It will take decades for Ukraine to be accepted into the European Union, France’s Emmanuel Macron has said in a speech to the EU’s parliament in Strasbourg
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61383632
“That is the truth, unless we decide to lower the standards for accession. And rethink the unity of our Europe.”
Something to be taken into account when assessing some of the wilder speculations expressed here. It’s from Al Jazeera:
“Putin’s speech shows he won’t use nuclear weapons: Ukraine official
An adviser to Zelenskyy has interpreted Putin’s Victory Day speech as indicating that Russia has no interest in escalating the war through the use of nuclear weapons or direct engagement with NATO, the Associated Press reports.
Oleksiy Arestovych pointed to Putin’s statement that Russia would honour the memory of those who fought in World War II by doing “everything so that the horror of a global war does not happen again”.
Translating from “Kremlin speak into Russian,” Arestovych said this means: “There will be no nuclear war. There will be no war with NATO. What will there be? There will be a sluggish attempt to solve three main problems,” which he identified as taking control of the entire Luhansk, Donetsk and Kherson regions.
Arestovych said in an online interview that Russia would drag out the war while bleeding the Ukrainian economy with the aim of getting Ukraine to agree to give up these territories.”Of course Arestovych may just be trying to convince NATO that they can safely give Ukraine more and more arms without provoking such an escalation by Russia. But I don’t suppose NATO’s war strategists need his opinion but his assessment of what Russia would settle for doesn’t seem implausible.
How will the West extricate itself from the sanctions it has imposed on Russia once the war has been frozen? Won’t such extrication have to be extremely slow, to save face?
And, won’t what remains of Ukraine be under enormous financial debt to the West for all the weaponry it is receiving? They can’t be just giving it all to them!?
Good question. Biden has just signed a lend-lease bill to send war supplies to Ukraine. It contains this clause:
“Under the measure, Ukraine can request streamlined transfers of U.S. weapons and other security assistance. The U.S. will get guarantees that the country will replace or reimburse the assets at a later date.”
Not for free then. A merchant of deaths charter. They will paid upfront and the US pick up the tab and then get the money back from Ukraine (if it can). Britain didn’t repay the Ww2 US lend lease till 2006.
Can I answer my own question?
It has achieved for the US the end of Nordstream 2, and Europe as a market for American gas.
It has caused a recession in Russia and has weakened any chance for EU independence from Washington.
All the deaths and loss and suffering has been “collateral damage” and no skin off Washington’s nose when contrasted with the above gains.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.