Ukraine conflict lounge

Thomas More

Hummingbird
I think it's time the USA and the collective west needs to get a bloody nose. I don't believe Russia alone can give that knuckle sandwich, but a Russia-China alliance with their proxies could do it well enough presently, in 10 years time, it could be a knockout.

Even though i reside in the west and will probably die in the lands of globohomo, the fact that some places in the world will escape our degeneracy, transhumanism and our ((elites)) subversions, is enough to make me feel not totally hopeless for humanities direction.

Basically the USA needs to lose and lose badly for once.

Sadly I agree. I feel like my own country, which I once loved, has made itself my enemy.
 

OrthoMexicano

Sparrow
Orthodox Inquirer
Very sad the way usa go. It all begin by embrace Satan, globohomo as Roosh say. The fall begin many year ago. US afghanistan policy fail totally and can not win. War with putin or China us have no chance. Russia orthodox christian nation so God will protect, china atheist BUT strong family structure, society. Like US pre-1960.

Dem party Satan but R party fake. Only solution is Christian religion takeover US, we pray pray pray.
 

budoslavic

Eagle
Orthodox
Gold Member
Via Vox Day, "The Inevitable False Flag"
The Fake Biden Administration has been kind enough to warn us about the war with Russia the neocons who run it are attempting to launch:

The US has intelligence that Russia is planning a ‘false-flag’ operation on its own forces in eastern Ukraine to create a pretext for invasion.

Officials on Friday also said they believed Russia was mounting a social media disinformation campaign to portray Ukraine as the aggressor.

The update, making the prospect of military conflict more immediate, came as Ukrainian government websites were taken offline in a ‘massive’ cyberattack, talks between Washington and Moscow collapsed and Russia held a combat readiness inspection of their troops.

Meanwhile, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia had ‘run out of patience’ with the West as Moscow demanded assurances that NATO would not expand closer to its territory.

The United States has evidence that operatives trained in urban warfare and sabotage will carry out these attacks on Russian proxy forces, officials told journalists on Friday, possibly weeks before an invasion.

‘We have information that indicates Russia has already pre-positioned a group of operatives to conduct a false flag operation in eastern Ukraine,’ said White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki.

‘The operatives are trained in urban warfare and using explosives to carry out acts of sabotage against Russia’s own proxy forces.’

She said it mimicked the playbook used when Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula, and included social media disinformation to show Kyiv as the instigator of violence.


Translation: The USA will be staging an obvious false flag prior to starting a war again.

Remember the Maine!

Thank goodness that Scott Adams invented and explained the new concept of projection to us earlier today, so we understand that when Jen Psaki says that Russia is going to conduct a false flag operation in eastern Ukraine, she’s actually describing what the US government is in the process of doing.

We owe him a real debt of gratitude for teaching us to see through the persuasion.

Edit.

 
Last edited:

DanielH

Ostrich
Orthodox
I think it's time the USA and the collective west needs to get a bloody nose. I don't believe Russia alone can give that knuckle sandwich, but a Russia-China alliance with their proxies could do it well enough presently, in 10 years time, it could be a knockout.
We might not even be able to beat just Russia on their territory anymore (by their own territory I really mean Ukraine and any place firmly within their sphere). They have quite a stock of hypersonic missiles we can't seem to figure out how to mass produce which would render the majority of our Navy and carrier based air capability void in the Black Sea region. Beyond that, how many ground divisions could we support in Ukraine and how fast could we get them there? Depends on how much Europe supports but they would not be very effective without air superiority. When was the last war the US fought without air superiority?
 

get2choppaaa

Ostrich
Orthodox
We might not even be able to beat just Russia on their territory anymore (by their own territory I really mean Ukraine and any place firmly within their sphere). They have quite a stock of hypersonic missiles we can't seem to figure out how to mass produce which would render the majority of our Navy and carrier based air capability void in the Black Sea region. Beyond that, how many ground divisions could we support in Ukraine and how fast could we get them there? Depends on how much Europe supports but they would not be very effective without air superiority. When was the last war the US fought without air superiority?
S400's is a major issue for our air superiority... Also their massing artillery fires is very problematic for us.

We have means to counter act and circumvent these things that cant be discussed on here... but coming from that world in fires planning... it would be incredibly foolish to engage Russia now. We'd only be left with nuclear options... which would be disastrously retarded for all.
 

Don Quixote

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
If CIA conducts an operation that forces Russia to intervene in East Ukraine, what would be the impact of that? I said earlier I expect full shut down of Russia-U.S. relations. But what would that mean for the West in the short term? How would Europe fare in such a situation economically?

The U.S. strategy seems delusional and doomed to failure, and perhaps that is the point, but at the end of the day someone must be winning. After all someone is orchestrating this by puppeteering our stupid politicians. So, what is the end game?
 

DanielH

Ostrich
Orthodox
The U.S. strategy seems delusional and doomed to failure, and perhaps that is the point, but at the end of the day someone must be winning. After all someone is orchestrating this by puppeteering our stupid politicians. So, what is the end game?
The end game is the complete and total destruction of Christianity and especially governments that are friendly to it as well as increased chaos and destruction that will prime the world for the Antichrist. The group of people who benefit from such a conflict is very small. Besides the oligarchs, many of those who benefit from this potential war work in D.C., defense contracting, and in the Knesset.
 

get2choppaaa

Ostrich
Orthodox
The end game is the complete and total destruction of Christianity and especially governments that are friendly to it as well as increased chaos and destruction that will prime the world for the Antichrist. The group of people who benefit from such a conflict is very small. Besides the oligarchs, many of those who benefit from this potential war work in D.C., defense contracting, and in the Knesset.
Haha yes that is the literal Endgame but considering that most of the people conducting this are completely inept (evil though they may be).... there is no long term real vision. Look at what happened with Iraq as an example. There was never any real clear goal/extraction criteria. Its designed to have constant strife for exploitation.

But for the short-sided NeoCons its the financial benefit through the .mil industrial complex and also the apparatus of the state department bureaucracy and insecure ego's playing war on a chess board. Think about the John Bolton's of the world whom never seen a single hard day in their life, never slept in the muck, never had to deal with killing someone, participating in warfare...ect.

There is no real end-goal in site... just a self licking ice-cream cone of war and chaos and war profiteering and ego gratification.
 

Don Quixote

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
"A chief problem in trying to analyze the Not-Ultimatum crisis is not knowing who or what is pulling the strings behind the US curtain. A consensus holds that the ones in front, such as the President and Vice President, do not exhibit much authority and their speeches indicate a vast amount of magical thinking. On the other hand, there are top level officials in the US who talk in different terms and indicate that at least some powers behind the curtain have a more objective view of reality and the relevant facts. Some of these facts are 1) that the US has lost the arms race, 2) the US government debt is out of control, 3) the US has the worst inflation in 37 years, 4) the US budget deficit is out of control, 5) the US economy is no longer the largest in the world, 6) the US continues to pour money into obsolete weapons systems, 7) The US social, racial, education, and health policies are disasters. Russia, on the other hand, is doing reasonably well on these factors. All the analysts at Langley and the Pentagon cannot be blind to these facts. Therefore, it is hard to believe that there are not secret groups somewhere in the bowels of the bureaucracies trying to figure out how to keep the ship of state from running into the proverbial iceberg. The key manifestation of such effort will be if new ideas begin to appear in the mainstream media and the more adept politicians begin to tack in a different direction. If this does not happen, then the American Empire will move ever faster toward sunset and follow all the previous empires to the same fate."

 

Don Quixote

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
Haha yes that is the literal Endgame but considering that most of the people conducting this are completely inept (evil though they may be).... there is no long term real vision. Look at what happened with Iraq as an example. There was never any real clear goal/extraction criteria. Its designed to have constant strife for exploitation.

But for the short-sided NeoCons its the financial benefit through the .mil industrial complex and also the apparatus of the state department bureaucracy and insecure ego's playing war on a chess board. Think about the John Bolton's of the world whom never seen a single hard day in their life, never slept in the muck, never had to deal with killing someone, participating in warfare...ect.

There is no real end-goal in site... just a self licking ice-cream cone of war and chaos and war profiteering and ego gratification.
In the short term, would war be confined to Ukraine or would it spill into Baltic and other nations? Would it be lights-out for Europe or do they have enough energy domestically to get through such a conflict? And how would Russia respond to this outside of Ukraine? One would expect them to ratchet up pressure on the United States by either placing missles in South America or Cuba or in subs in the Atlantic. I think this can really get to a level that the United States is not used to. When wars happen in places like Ukraine, the public largely doesn't care. But if you have weapons pointed at the American public one would hope that would make Washington think sensibly. At the same time, we also have people in charge of nuclear warfare that are really spooky characters with ill-defined motives. So I don't know what to think at the moment. Maybe we should consider packing up our things and heading off to Panama lol.
 

La Águila Negra

Ostrich
Protestant
https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-us-mercenaries-plan-chemical-attack-ukraine/ - worth revisiting this now that CNN is saying Russia will launch false-flag on its own people to induce Ukraine invasion. However, in my opinion it is more likely it is the West (Mi6, CIA) who would be the operators of this false-flag.

If CIA tied outlets like CNN and (((neo-con))) rags like Politico talk about a Russian false flag operation what it means is that CIA/MI-6 will execute the operation and then pin it on Russia. Rumours of a Russian chemical weapons false flag attack were circulating ~6 weeks ago already.

Motives remain unknown. I still find it hard to believe that people in DC actually want a full scale conflict because of retarded ideologues and MIC gravy trains.

Instead it's more likely that they either want to force Russia to take action without committing themselves. Ukraine is expendable. This scenario would result in a total breakdown in relations and would 1. relieve domestic tensions by creating a foreign release valve, 2. consolidate the US' position in Europe - according to their warped logic that is.

Or the DC apparatchiks think Putin is bluffing and they are calling his bluff.

The latter isn't too farfetched a reasoning to be fair. For Putin this is a do or die moment. He has been cultivating his badass maverick coupled with Russia's return to superpower status for years but is always on the defensive and chickens out when things get rough.

People, both internationally and domestically, are starting to notice. Putin has said that Eastward expansion of NATO must stop. If he caves on this issue because unwilling to go the whole nine miles Russia's position will become untenable and we will have to talk about The Naked Tsar instead of the Naked Emperor.

The missiles in Venezuela-Nicaragua-Cuba suggestion is dumb and shows Russia's still looking for ways to avert the inevitable. If he backs off of this he's toast.
 
Last edited:

BasedBaker

Robin
Trad Catholic
Here's how I see it and I'll not that bright.

East- Russia(its vassal states included), China and Iran

West- NATO(globohomo coalition)

Wild Card- India

How is this going to play out? If India checks the wind and see that the East will most likely come out of this conflict in a position of power do they:

1.) Join forces with the Eastern Powers for a total annihilation of the Western Powers and are in league with the world's new super power coalition? Be on the winning side and in position for a greater role on the national stage.

2.) Join with the Western Powers due to their on going conflict with China? This wouldn't allow China to divert all it's resources to battle in the Eurasian Steppe due to security at home and with their population allow more machine gun fodder for the West to throw at the East.

3.) Stay neutral throughout the conflict

Very interesting times ahead.
 

La Águila Negra

Ostrich
Protestant
If CIA conducts an operation that forces Russia to intervene in East Ukraine, what would be the impact of that? I said earlier I expect full shut down of Russia-U.S. relations. But what would that mean for the West in the short term? How would Europe fare in such a situation economically?

The U.S. strategy seems delusional and doomed to failure, and perhaps that is the point, but at the end of the day someone must be winning. After all someone is orchestrating this by puppeteering our stupid politicians. So, what is the end game?

Anatol Lieven argues that China would be the winner.


Did this week’s US-NATO-Russia meetings push us closer to war?
Washington’s insistence on digging in over NATO expansion and pushing sanctions is setting up a major disaster for both sides.

On January 12, 2022 — a date that will live in hypocrisy — NATO member states declared their heroic determination to fight to the last Ukrainian. They did this by in effect rejecting Russia’s conditions for agreement with the alliance, centered on the demand that NATO rule out further expansion to Ukraine, Georgia and other former Soviet republics.

The hypocrisy and idiocy — over which historians of the future are likely to shake their heads in bewilderment — lie in the fact that NATO has no real intention of admitting Ukraine, nor of fighting Russia in Ukraine. Both Washington and Brussels have openly ruled this out. Indeed, NATO could not do so even if it wanted to. U.S. forces in Europe are wholly inadequate to the purpose, as are what is left of the British and French armies.

Despite all the hysterical rhetoric from European politicians and journalists about the Russian threat, no serious attempt has been made or is being made to build up European armed forces; as witness the consistent refusal of most NATO states — even some of those most bitterly hostile to Russia— to raise their military spending to two percent of GDP.

The real deterrent to Russian military action against Ukraine lies in the threat of greatly intensified economic sanctions — a powerful deterrent, but one that the U.S. Senate is now threatening to throw away by imposing these sanctions in advance, when Russia has not yet taken any action.

If President Putin, and Russia itself, were the forces of instinctive, unlimited aggression and ambition that the Western media has conjured up, then the threat of economic sanctions would be ineffective. Fortunately, Putin has always operated as a ruthless but also cautious, cool-headed, and pragmatic statesman. We can still hope that this will continue to be the case.

Room for Compromise?

But just as NATO has spent the past 20 years assiduously painting itself into a corner with its empty rhetoric about keeping the possibility of NATO membership for Ukraine open, so Moscow is now painting itself into a corner with its ostensibly non-negotiable demand that the United States and NATO officially and categorically rule this out.

There is still a chance that U.S. flexibility in two other areas can avert Russian military action. The first is NATO commitment to deploy no new forces in NATO countries close to Russia’s borders, in return for Russian limits on new deployments and the stand-down of the troops now deployed on Ukraine’s borders.


The second is genuine U.S. and Western support for the Minsk II agreement on autonomy for a demilitarized Donbas region within Ukraine, and real pressure on the Ukrainian government to concede this. Donbas autonomy within Ukraine would be a serious barrier both to Ukraine seeking NATO membership, and to the development of a mono-ethnic Ukraine, and would therefore indirectly meet Russia’s key concerns.

The United States however now needs to move very fast to offer these compromises. If it does not, then a new war looks increasingly possible. This war would be a disaster for all parties concerned: for NATO, whose military impotence would be cruelly emphasised; for Russia, that would suffer severe economic damage and be forced into a position of dependency on China with grave implications for Russia’s future; and above all for the thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians who would lose their lives. In fact, the only country that would benefit unequivocally from such a war would be China —and I wasn’t aware that U.S. and NATO policies are designed to further the geopolitical aims of Beijing.

A serious debate over NATO’s true function

As a result of a long series of steps, NATO today has therefore become an organization profoundly damaging to the real interests of the United States and Europe. It does not have to be this way. If it could return to its core function as the ultimate backstop of West and Central European security, it can still play a modestly useful role. To conduct a serious debate on NATO’s role however it is first necessary to examine with clear-eyed and courageous honesty the reasons why its various member states remain so attached to an alliance whose original purpose disappeared with the end of the cold war.

The reasons are clearest in the case of the United States. Militarily, NATO functions as Airstrip One (George Orwell’s name for Britain in 1984), a base for U.S. power projection in Eurasia, the Middle East and North Africa. Allied to this is the influence that it gives America over what remains — for the moment —one of the three great economic heartlands of the world. Canada, as inescapably situated in America’s sphere of influence, does what Washington says, with the occasional squeal of impotent resentment.

Among NATO’s European members, motives differ. The NATO secretariat exists to guarantee its own continued existence, by whatever means necessary. Some of the East Europeans suffer from understandable paranoia vis a vis Russia as a result of their past sufferings at the hands of Moscow — though as with our attitude to any victim of crime, we should not confuse sympathy for their past suffering with acceptance of the resulting paranoia as rational. As for Turkey, it is still in NATO partly to stop it becoming even more of an enemy, and partly because of the procedural difficulty of kicking it out.

Britain supports NATO essentially as part of the alliance with the United States, which allows Britain to posture as a great power on the world stage by riding on America’s shoulders. France does so for much the same reason, with the difference that while Britain’s interests in this are almost wholly to do with national self-image, France needs the U.S. alliance for a very concrete reason: the increasing necessity of U.S. military support to maintain France’s sphere of influence in Francophone Africa and fight Islamist insurgencies there.

As far as the other West European members of NATO are concerned, the essential reason for their adherence to the alliance is fear — fear of Russia —but above all fear of each other and of themselves. Much of this is due to the Second World War and the ease with which a row of countries surrendered to Germany, while in Germany’s own case there is still a degree to which they fear themselves.

A new and disastrous twist to European fears was given by the shameful European failure in the Bosnian war of the early 1990s. This has left the Europeans with a deep sense (openly acknowledged by German officials in private) that they cannot solve even what (in military terms) are small problems on their own continent without the full involvement of the United States, guaranteed by NATO. And finally of course, America’s military presence as part of NATO spares the Europeans the military spending and the painful military reforms that they would need to undertake if they were to take responsibility for their own security.

These motives may be mildly contemptible, but they are at least modest and rational. The problem is that they have been ingested by two other ambitions that are not modest and rational at all. The first is the U.S. desire for universal hegemony, including the right to dictate other countries’ political systems and what influence they will be allowed to possess beyond their own borders.

The second is the European elites’ belief in the European Union of as a kind of moral superpower, expanding to embrace the whole of Europe (without Russia of course), and setting a liberal internationalist example to the world; but a militarily impotent superpower that relies for security on the United States, via NATO.

These projects have now manifestly failed. The U.S. project for universal global hegemony was shattered by Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and above all the economic rise of China.The European project has been rejected by large numbers of Europeans; and the failure to establish stable liberal democracy in eastern Europe and the Balkans makes it exceptionally unlikely that the EU will seriously plan to extend membership to Ukraine in the foreseeable future.

If we can recognize this failure and return to a more modest view of ourselves and our role in the world, we can also abandon the empty and hypocritical false promise of further NATO expansion and seek a reasonably cooperative relationship with Russia. Or we can go on living in our world of make-believe, though make-believe worlds have a way of being shattered by harsh realities.
 

Thomas More

Hummingbird
If CIA tied outlets like CNN and (((neo-con))) rags like Politico talk about a Russian false flag operation what it means is that CIA/MI-6 will execute the operation and then pin it on Russia. Rumours of a Russian chemical weapons false flag attack were circulating ~6 weeks ago already.

Motives remain unknown. I still find it hard to believe that people in DC actually want a full scale conflict because of retarded ideologues and MIC gravy trains.

Instead it's more likely that they either want to force Russia to take action without committing themselves. Ukraine is expendable. This scenario would result in a total breakdown in relations and would 1. relieve domestic tensions by creating a foreign release valve, 2. consolidate the US' position in Europe - according to their warped logic that is.

Or the DC apparatchiks think Putin is bluffing and they are calling his bluff.

The latter isn't too farfetched a reasoning to be fair. For Putin this is a do or die moment. He has been cultivating his badass maverick coupled with Russia's return to superpower status for years but is always on the defensive and chickens out when things get rough.

People, both internationally and domestically, are starting to notice. Putin has said that Eastward expansion of NATO must stop. If he caves on this issue because unwilling to go the whole nine miles Russia's position will become untenable and we will have to talk about The Naked Tsar instead of the Naked Emperor.

The missiles in Venezuela-Nicaragua-Cuba suggestion is dumb and shows Russia's still looking for ways to avert the inevitable. If he backs off of this he's toast.
As far as Putin chickening out, my advice (if he asks it of me) is not to go out in a blaze of fire.

I think he has played a prudent course, and I could even see him snatching the Ukraine back, but he should do it with Chinese support, and in a situation where the US is clearly out maneuvered. He should seek a situation where any sanctions on Russia are far less crippling than the ones after he (rightly) took Crimea back.

It's better to bide your time and properly lay the groundwork, than to strike impulsively without knowing what outcome to expect.
 

Don Quixote

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
Anatol Lieven argues that China would be the winner.

That's a good analysis. Assuming war is contained in Ukraine, China's position is reminiscent of the U.S. position during the first world war. It kind of stayed on the sidelines and was able to amass incredible wealth by not being directly harmed and by acting as a safe haven for foreign investors. It also was able to basically provide loans to struggling nations in Europe. China is far enough away from a European conflict that it can possibly do the same, assuming it doesn't morph into all out war with Taiwan on the Eastern Front.

While I do believe the Western intention could be to stick Russia in a Ukrainian quagmire, thus causing a total disassociation away from Europe and framing Russia as the bad guy, the problem is that there are many possibilities for the war to overflow outside of Ukraines borders... If that happens then Baltics will be the number one battle ground in Europe I think.

Also, I would imagine fronts to open up in Georgia too, and who knows what will happen with China and Taiwan. China might sense that it is time to mobilize on that front. There have also been tensions in Armenia, South Korea, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc. Many many places seem gearing up for conflict. So it really is foolhardy to think that this would easily be contained in Ukraine and not develop into full global war.
 

Thomas More

Hummingbird
I am far more sympathetic to Taiwan wanting to remain independent from China than the Ukraine, although arguably this situations are parallel.

I assume if China strikes to take Taiwan, they will succeed, and that would be a perfect time for Russia to take back the Ukraine.

The same vice versa. If China and Russia stood together on this, who could stand against them?
 
Top