Russia has launched a new IRBM at Ukraine to showcase its resolve and restore deterrence in response to Biden's reckless decision to authorize Ukraine to use US ATACMS missiles deep inside Russia
— OUR GREAT LORD, AND, PRECIOUS SAVIOR I S FAITHFUL …!!!!!!! —
OH!!! LORD JESUS…!!! We ASK YOU BELIEVING INTO YOUR DIVINITY, AND, FAITHFULNESS …!!! DO SAVE US ALL - IN YOUR PRECIOUS NAME , JESUS, THE CHRIST OF GOD , AS YOU ALWAYS HAVE, BY THE STEADFASTNESS OF YOUR OWN FAITHFUL WORD…!!…!!! YOU ALONE ARE OUR G O D …!!! WE BELIEVE INTO YOU ALONE…!!! THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN DIVINE WORD, WE ASK …!!! DO SAVE ALL OF YOUR CREATION … AS YOU ALWAYS HAVE…!!!
I saw that the Russians released an infographic showing that that IRBM could hit London in 20 minutes and the other European capitols in less time. And that was launching from Russia. What if they put some of those in Kaliningrad? Then we are talking London in like 12 minutes. And Poland and Berlin in less than 5 minutes. Do you think those numbers are accurate or a little bit of inflated propaganda? That kind of speed would be a severe game changer and indefensible with conventional anti-missile systems.
Sometimes when I express fears of Russia and it's big military numbers, the response I get is something like "Russia's military is a paper tiger and it have been exposed in this war. Big numbers but poorly trained, poorly led, poorly equipped. And their nukes probably don't work to the corrupt system which probably fakes the maintenance." Than kind of dismissive attitude like how back in the Cold War, the Soviets couldn't make a decent clock radio or car so everything must be bad. How do you respond those kinds of arguments?
Russia has long had more advanced nuclear weapons and delivery systems than the US has. Our nukes and delivery systems are 32-64 years old. Theirs are 20 years old or less. There is a ridiculous amount of fact-denying hubris on the US side that can be very dangerous when it comes to violating Russia's redlines any one of which could be the trigger for Russian nuclear escalation.
You say that Putin shouldn't have invaded ? I'd wager Putin regrets not invading earlier when the drama queens in the West were hysterical over a flu-like virus with a 99.99 survival rate . If he had he could have settled this quickly like he did previously in Georgia
Furthermore, the West, over the last 3 years have confirmed the very worst suspicions, insomuch, they are completely nefarious, duplicitous and deranged ; they have shown their true colours under educated idiots and overgrown schoolboys like Boris Johnson and Macron .
When Putin says they are as ''dumb and dogsheet'', he is, as usual, quite right . The only statesmen involved are Putin and Lavrov who have been showing admirable wise restraint when faced by constant provocations by western idiots
If Kamala Harris had won the last election, then that would be it ; a darwin award for the West in the form of a Russian nuclear attack, but even with Trump in control there's still danger afoot as that DC swamp slug, Biden, is spitefully doing his best to sabotage Trump's future presidency by digging a deep hole in Ukraine that he'll have trouble climbing out of . The best thing that Biden can do for his country at this stage is to simply crawl away and die somewhere
I read recently how that idiot Harris has gone on vacation to commiserate with Obama in his oceanside mansion in Hawaii . Just try to imagine the vacuous and delirious conversation that went on with those two DEI hires . Both represent everything that has gone wrong with America as the malignant fruits of the 1960s ; it would be like a scene from H G Wells's dystopian novel , ''The Island of Dr Moreau ''. It seems like a bad dream -a fevered nightmare, but Kamala Harris REALLY almost did become President of the USA - who says life isn't stranger than fiction ?
The truth is that Putin never wanted to invade Ukraine. He wanted peace with the West and wanted Russia to be included in the economic and military infrastructure of Europe. He was satisfied with Ukraine as a permanently neutral buffer state that controlled Crimea but gave Russia a permanent lease on Sevastopol naval base. Even after the Biden-authorized CIA backed overthrow of President Yanukovych and the installation of our puppet PM, Putin was satisfied with Crimea and autonomy for the Donbass region. He just wants Ukraine restored to its pre-2014 status quo as a neutral buffer state. But yes, Biden could still start a world war with Russia before Trump takes office. Its a far greater danger than most Americans realize.
It wouldn't surprise me if Trump gets bumped off before taking office ; nor would it surprise me if its a deranged leftist woman as they tend to fly beneath the radar
Remember Lincoln in April 65 just after his greatest victory - that's how history often unfolds - triumph, then tragedy ...JFK in November 63 ?
Your argument assumes that providing Ukraine with long-range missiles escalates the risk of nuclear war, but this plays directly into Russia’s psychological warfare tactics. Moscow has consistently used veiled nuclear threats not as a genuine precursor to escalation, but to intimidate NATO and paralyze western support for Ukraine. I would contend that this is more of a calculated move to paralyze Western decision-making as opposed to a direct threat of nuclear war.
Russia has historically used nuclear threats as leverage without crossing the threshold, both during the Cold War and in more recent confrontations with NATO. The costs of nuclear escalation for Russia would be catastrophic, politically and militarily, and would alienate them from its remaining allies. Tactical nuclear use would also contaminate the very territories Russia aims to control. This is largely why these threats are rhetorical, and intended to create fear rather than actual strategy. Russia fights by using psychological warfare to paralyze the enemy before they decide to finally take action, and this is deeply embedded in the Gerasimov Doctrine that Russia has adapted to in recent years.
Russia has continuously been the escalating party here, not NATO. They ran complex psychological and cyber warfare campaigns, primarily in The Donbas but also in the rest of Ukraine, for 10 years before they finally invaded. But the biggest line they crossed is the use of the North Korean military. Yielding to these threats would only embolden Russia to continue to escalate, and NATO is effectively calling their bluff.
I think it’s key to recognize that Russia is manipulating the logic of mutually assured destruction doctrine to perpetuate a psychological attack against the west, and that any sign of weakness at this point in time will likely have the opposite effect of what’s contended, lead Russia to think it’s winning the information war, and ultimately cause further escalations by Russia.
The war in Ukraine was deliberately provoked by the US especially by Biden himself. On December 7, 2021, Putin guaranteed not to invade Ukraine if Biden issued a written guarantee that Ukraine would never join NATO yet he repeatedly refused, deliberately choosing war for Ukraine to strengthen NATO which was then struggling for a reason for its continued existence. We now have multiple statements from US government officials and French President Macron that the US has been consistently opposing Ukrainian NATO membership along with Germany. So there was no reason for Biden to withhold his guarantee to Russia and guarantee Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Likewise, Russia and Ukraine negotiated a peace deal on March 31, 2022 which would have constituted a smashing victory for Ukraine but Biden sent Boris Johnson to pressure Zelensky to rescind it and keep fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian at the cost of over a million Ukrainians dead and wounded to date.
I think Biden's irrational and incredibly dangerous escalation increases the risk of Russian nuclear escalation without question. That does not mean I believe I think Russian nuclear escalation is a likely outcome. Rather, I believe that Russia would escalate up the escalation spiral first with greater kinetic strikes including with IRBMs against Ukraine including locations where NATO military personnel is present as well as increased strikes to take down Ukraine's electrical power grid during the winter. They also have the ability to use a massive cyberattack and counterspace attacks to take down Ukraine's critical infrastructure and the Western satellites supporting their war effort. If those escalations fail to enable Russia to re-establish deterrence with the West, then I think they will likely engage in major cyberattacks against the US and NATO on a scale we have never seen before. If that fails, then they would engage in a massive cyberattack and counterspace attack against the US and NATO that would take down all of our critical infrastructure and cause all NATO nations to collapse. Presumably, nuclear and super EMP weapons would not be necessary to destroy the Western world but that is always on the table as is the use of non-strategic nuclear weapons against NATO and Ukraine which would be a more likely mode of attack.
The bottom line is that Biden's continued crossing of Russian redlines threatens the very existence not just of Ukraine but of the entire Western world regardless of whether or not Russia intends to use nuclear weapons against us or not. President-Elect Trump understands that the overriding US national security imperative must be to ensure America's survival not to risk a Third World War being fought over the neutral status of a nation located on the farthest fringes of Eastern Europe half way across the world in which the US has no discernible security interest. The US should never have sent lethal military assistance to Ukraine. Then the war would have ended with a Ukrainian victory in the form of the Istanbul Agreement in which Russia committed to withdraw Russian troops from ALL of Ukraine's prewar territory. It is ironic that $200 billion in US aid has prolonged the war and will ensure that the peace agreement that ends the war will be much less favorable to Ukraine than what it could have had over two and a half years ago.
First off, I appreciate the sub! You’re my first! Also appreciate the response, I enjoy a good debate on the topic.
I agree with you in some respects, particularly that it wasn’t necessary to allow US weapons to be used on Russian soil. I think Biden has, at times, escalated the situation unnecessarily, but much of that escalation has been reactive to Russia’s actions rather than proactive.
I would contend that the war against Ukraine can’t be solely attributed to NATO expansion or Biden’s refusal to guarantee that Ukraine would not join NATO. This invasion has been building for years, rooted in Putin’s broader ambition to reassert control over Ukraine and other former Soviet states. If you run Putin’s speeches and actions over the past two decades through a sentiment analysis, they reflect a consistent narrative tied to the concept of Russkiy Mir (“Russian World”), which frames Ukraine as an inseparable part of Russia’s historical and cultural sphere. While NATO and weak US leadership serve as a convenient scapegoats to justify the aggression, the reality is that this war is fundamentally driven by Russia’s ideological pursuit of restoring its dominance in the region and enforcing the Russkiy Mir narrative, rather than any specific provocation from the West.
I also believe the nuclear threats from Russia are primarily a form of psychological warfare. These threats are designed to intimidate NATO and deter further support for Ukraine, but history has shown us that Russia (and the Soviet Union before it) have consistently used these tactics, but never crossed that threshold. The consequences of nuclear escalation would be substantially more catastrophic for Russia itself, making it highly unlikely that Putin would cross that line unless his regime was ultimately threatened and it was a last ditch resort. Like I said, this is deeply rooted in Russia’s doctrine, and Putin likely expected it to cause more of a “tactical pause” in NATO support, but NATO has seemingly called the bluff.
That said, the NATO really needs to tread carefully now, there certainly are real risks of miscalculation. But failing to support Ukraine further would only embolden Russia further and play in to their psychological campaign. In my view, NATO needed to act years ago to counter Russia’s ambitions, but we have broadly failed to recognize and respond effectively to Russia’s cognitive, information, and cyber operations targeting NATO and its member states. These operations have been undermining democratic institutions, creating division, and weakening NATO cohesion for over a decade, which is ultimately what laid the groundwork for Russia’s aggression. This is supported by Gerasimov’s article “The Value of Science Is in the Foresight” (https://www.armyupress.army.mil/portals/7/military-review/archives/english/militaryreview_20160228_art008.pdf), and this what Russia has adopted its doctrinal principles to reflect.
Supporting Ukraine now is a necessary response to these failures, NATO has a moral obligation to ensure that the state sovereignty of the vulnerable and the rule of international law are upheld, and to send a clear message that Russian aggression will not be tolerated. The biggest question I now have is if it’s too late. NATO should have adopted this approach long ago, or at least adopted strategies to counter it.
The best way to support Ukraine would be to pressure Zelensky to negotiate an immediate end to the war along the surprisingly reasonable terms Putin offered up until July 14th. Russian Foreign Ministry officials have suggested they would be willing to accept a permanent peace deal along the current line of control walking back Putin's demand for all of the four former Ukrainian oblast. Putin has proven he is not an imperialist and Russia's invasion of Ukraine was inherently defensive to rollback NATO from Ukraine and restore the pre-2014 status quo. Neocons keep saying that Russia is bluffing with its nuclear threats but the truth is they know what their nuclear redline is and its very possible Biden and Zelensky may cross it before Trump takes office resulting in mushroom clouds over Kiev and or NATO HQ in Brussles.
You bet! Back in January 2022, I warned that Putin's invasion of Ukraine had been planned for two decades and warned he was planning to re-establish an Imperial Russian Confederation of states in which former Soviet satellites would remain nominally independent but would become subservient to Moscow if not outright satellite states like Belarus. But then Putin started proving me wrong. First in invading Ukraine with only 190,000 proving he only wanted part of Ukraine, then with the Istanbul Agreement in March 2022 in which he committed to withdrawal all Russian troops from prewar Ukrainian territory and then finally in April 2022 when he unilaterally withdrew all Russian troops from northern Ukraine including Russian troops partially surrounding Kyiv proving he didn't want Ukraine at all and that he just wanted Ukraine returned to its pre-Maidan coup neutral buffer state status. I am shocked that more Russia experts did not recalibrate their views of Putin after this massive unilateral military withdrawal at a time when Ukraine was still quite weak militarily and not fully mobilized. The truth is Putin could have annexed Ukraine at anytime but has chosen not to.
I appreciate the nuance, especially your observation that Putin’s actions don’t necessarily reflect an intent to annex or occupy all of Ukraine. Initially, I think many interpreted the scale of the invasion as a sign of broader territorial ambitions from the Kremlin. However, looking at Russia’s subsequent actions and recalibrations, it seems clear that influence has always been the driving objective.
And this aligns closely with the principles of hybrid warfare outlined by Valery Gerasimov that we know Putin is closely following.. Russia’s actions in Ukraine, from the annexation of Crimea to the destabilization of Donetsk and Luhansk, have never about seizing as much territory as possible, they’re about ensuring that Ukraine remains unable to function as an independent, Western-aligned state. The early push toward Kyiv was likely nothing more than a gamble to decapitate the government and install a regime sympathetic to Moscow, which is probably why they abandoned it so fast, unlike in the east.
That said, I do think Putin’s vision for Ukraine goes beyond neutrality. Russia has created this broader pattern of trying to deny sovereignty to its neighbours. What might appear as neutrality on paper is, in reality, submission to Moscow’s influence. This isn’t unique to Ukraine, they did the same thing in Georgia, Moldova, and Belarus. The objective has always been to assert dominance over the post-Soviet space without necessarily absorbing these nations outright.
Your point about Putin recalibrating his strategy is well taken. The withdrawals around Kyiv and other shifts in military objectives likely reflect a pragmatic adjustment to realities on the ground rather than a lack of ambition. What’s important, I think, is recognizing that Russia’s focus remains on influence and destabilization as opposed to traditional territorial conquest. This approach fits the Gerasimov Doctrine’s focus on controlled chaos and hybrid warfare. Prolonged instability in Ukraine serves Moscow’s strategic interests.
Putin attempted to resolve the Ukraine in NATO crisis through peaceful means from 2007-2022 first with his 2007 Munich Security Conference speech which was followed with Russia's proposed draft mutual security agreements with the US and NATO in 2009 and 2021. The Russian draft for NATO was entirely acceptable to me but the one they drafted for the US had three points which I found objectionable. Putin also tried to make peace in 2014 and 2015 with the Minsk I and II agreements in which he agreed to Ukrainian control of the entire Donbass region but Ukrainian leaders refused to implement the terms of the agreement and continuing bombarding the Donbass People's Republics with artillery causing 14,000 Russian speaking Ukrainians to be killed. Then Zelensky pledged to take back both the Donbass and Crimea by force in April 2021, signing two strategic partnership agreements with the US military in August 2021 and one with Biden in November 2021. Combined with both land and naval joint exercises making it a de facto member state, it caused Russia to mass its troops on Ukraine's borders with Putin offering not to invade Ukraine if Biden agreed to issue a written guarantee Ukraine would never join NATO but Biden refused and repudiated Russia's draft mutual security agreement on January 25th, 2022 provoking Russia to invade. As Sumatra Maitra has stated, Russia is a reactive power, it only invades its neighbors when it feels threatened by NATO imperial expansion.
I appreciate your perspective on Russia’s attempts at diplomacy, particularly regarding the Minsk Agreements. However, I think it’s important to critically examine the Minsk Accords, and more importantly the subsequent contradictions that arose between Russia’s actions and the commitments made under those agreements. The accords were absolutely intended to provide a framework for peace in eastern Ukraine, but Russia’s behaviour undermined the spirit of those accords, making it clear that their aims went beyond the terms of those agreements.
As you rightly point out, the accords called for a ceasefire, a withdrawal of heavy weapons, and the restoration of Ukrainian control over its borders. However, Russia continued to support separatist forces in Donetsk and Luhansk, which was in direct contradiction of these terms. Russia not only recognized the breakaway republics, but also provided them with military support, undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty and making the implementation of the accords practically impossible. The agreements specifically aimed to restore Ukrainian control over its territory, but Russia used its network of oligarchs and non-state actors so they would have “plausible deniability” on their direct involvement, and not appear to be in contradiction of the accords. They continued to send their “little green men” along with supplies, weapons, etc. to separatists, and only perpetuated the violence and instability in the region.
Further, the accords called for local elections in Donbas, these were supposed to be under Ukrainian law with international oversight. Yet Russia insisted on holding these elections in separatist-controlled areas to legitimize the breakaway republics, which just further undermined Ukrainian sovereignty. This insistence on elections that didn’t meet Ukrainian or international standards was another obstacle to peace and reconciliation. The restoration of Ukrainian border control was also a central tenet of the accords, but Russia continued to fuel the conflict by sending fighters and weapons across the border, directly contradicting the agreed-upon terms and preventing Ukraine from actually regaining control over its territory.
I agree that Putin may have initially tried to resolve the conflict through diplomacy, but the follow on actions show that the agreements themselves were used more as a political tool than a genuine path to peace. Russia’s behavior in the years following Minsk suggests that the true goal was not simply a peaceful resolution, but that Russia was set on maintaining influence over Ukraine through continued military pressure and political manipulation.
Just to clarify, I’m not excusing Ukraine’s actions in any way, but it’s crucial to understand that the situation was exacerbated by Russia’s constant undermining of the peace process. Ukraine was caught between trying to uphold its sovereignty while Russia actively continued destabilizing the country and denying meaningful peace efforts.
I think the key disagreement here is that we see Russia’s advancement of their geopolitcial objectives in different manners. Even if a peace deal is reached, I believe that Russia will continue to use other means, like disinformation, cyberattacks, and economic coercion, to destabilize Ukraine, as well as the rest of the west and NATO, and undermine its sovereignty. This is why I don’t think Russia’s ambitions will change with a peace deal alone. It’s definitely important to pursue diplomacy, but Russia has shown time and again that it will not abandon its broader strategic goals for the sake of a peace deal. Russia’s long-standing pattern of destabilizing its neighbors, combined with its behavior during the Minsk process, makes it clear that peace won’t stop Moscow from continuing its efforts to maintain influence over Ukraine and its neighbors, whether through direct military intervention or other asymmetric tactics that it is continuing to refine against NATO targets.
I'm just amazed at the wise restraint the Russians are using, that I am sure is the result of the tolerance that adults have for misbehaving teenagers . They have such contempt, even pity for the West, who they see as going out of their minds due to decadence, affluence and sexual deviancy . When Putin talks about the ''crisis of liberalism'' then he's absolutely correct as we humans can endure, even grow, with hardship and suffering, but we cannot engage in too much pleasure seeking hedonism without going off our rockers and becoming child-like . H G Wells was right again with his dystopian novel ''The Time Machine ''
You're wrong on almost everything and are merely parroting off the establishment view of things . You come across as an educated idiot who has had his worldview shaped by western (read globalist) propaganda without the merest hint of self awareness
''Great Powers have spheres of influence '' is a political maxim, and America's version of it with the 200 year old Monroe Doctrine is confirmation of it ; but apparently those pesky Ruskies in the largest country in the world-with the most nuclear bombs are not entitled to their ''buffer zone''
It was NATO in 1999 who intervened in a civil war in the former Yugoslavia by launching a 60 day bombing campaign, followed by a land invasion to wrest Serbia's historic Kosovo province from them ; so if NATO can do that, then Putin can definitely intervene in a civil war in the Donbas and take territory from them due to it clearly being in Russia's historic sphere of influence
No country in Europe has suffered as much destruction and loss of life than Russia in the 20th C , so they are bound to be concerned about their security, even if they sometimes delve into paranoia . But that's exactly why they should be given space by having a buffer zone of neutral, non aligned states on their western borders as it's just common sense as no Great Power wants a foreign military alliance camped out on their front lawn
This diabolical Slavic civil war was instigated by the decadent and deranged West, but what goes around, often comes around in a crude form of historical karma - so the long suffering Russians will be well within their rights to hope for a civil war of sorts to break out in the USA that is like a candle burning from both ends ; and if it were to then the Russians will enjoy their schadenfreude as rough justice
Let’s start with your choice to call me an “educated idiot.” If your argument is strong, it should stand on its own without the need for insults. Name-calling doesn’t strengthen your position; it simply detracts from the points you’re trying to make. If you’re serious about having a meaningful discussion, I encourage you to engage with the arguments instead of resorting to personal attacks. Now, let’s address your points.
You dismiss the concept of spheres of influence with sarcasm, yet you simultaneously argue for a Russian “buffer zone” of neutral, non-aligned states. This is a fundamentally hypocritical position. A buffer zone is, by definition, an extension of a sphere of influence, and a mechanism for a great power to maintain control over its periphery. You can’t argue that Russia has the right to a buffer zone while rejecting the validity of spheres of influence as a geopolitical reality. In fact, your argument for a buffer zone only reinforces the idea that spheres of influence exist rather than undermining it. The question isn’t whether spheres of influence exist, because they clearly do, but whether their enforcement can justify violating state sovereignty and international law.
Also, Russia’s actions in Ukraine go far beyond creating a buffer zone. These actions blatantly undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and violate the principles of the UN Charter and the Budapest Memorandum. Russia’s behavior is about far more than defence. Is defence part of it? Sure. But this is more about destabilizing Ukraine to prevent it from aligning with the West. Russia can’t claim to be defending Ukraine’s neutrality while simultaneously supporting policies that strip it of agency and reduce it to nothing more than a pawn in Moscow’s geopolitical ambitions. This is not neutrality, it’s enforced compliance under the guise of non-alignment.
Your comparison between NATO’s intervention in Kosovo and Russia’s actions in Ukraine is also deeply flawed. NATO intervened in Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing and mass atrocities that there was clear, undeniable evidence of, and the response was grounded in the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. It was certainly a controversial move, but at no point did NATO annex territory or seek to permanently control Serbia. Russia’s actions in Ukraine, which state media framed as a “humanitarian intervention,” have caused far more destruction than they claimed to prevent. If protecting Russian-speaking populations was the true motive, why escalate a conflict that has displaced millions, the majority from eastern Ukraine where the majority of the population are those they were claiming to protect? Why did they destroy critical infrastructure, and subject predominantly Russian-speaking areas like Donetsk, Luhansk, and Mariupol to relentless bombardment? If the goal was truly humanitarian, their actions have been catastrophically counterproductive. Far from safeguarding Russian-speaking populations, Russia’s military campaign has caused mass displacement, untold suffering, and the devastation of the very communities they claimed to be trying to protect. This contradiction exposes that the so-called “protection” narrative was a pretext for aggression, not a genuine motive that was rooted in concern for civilian well-being.
You also argue that “no great power wants a foreign military alliance camped out on their front lawn.” This might appeal to a realist perspective, but it oversimplifies the situation and demonstrates a pretty rudimentary understanding of how we got here. NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe wasn’t a move to provoke Russia, it was a defensive response to legitimate security concerns from the former Soviet bloc. Poland, Estonia, Lithuania all joined NATO voluntarily because they were scared of the historical threat of Russian aggression. They aren’t pawns of a Western expansionist agenda, they acted as sovereign states to ensure their own security. Clearly those fears were well founded when Russia invaded Ukraine, and effectively validated their decision.
Your point about Russia’s historical suffering is valid, and in no way do I dispute the immense amount of suffering Russia endured throughout the 20th century. Russia absolutely has a right to security, as do all nations, but that right does not extend to dominating or coercing its neighbors. Ukraine’s pursuit of NATO and EU membership reflects the will of its people, not some Western conspiracy to surround Russia. Suggesting that Ukraine should remain neutral simply to appease Russia entirely ignores the agency of Ukrainians, and the argument reduces their country to a bargaining chip in your imagined power struggle. Sovereignty matters—whether it’s Ukraine, Poland, or even Russia itself.
Additionally, your framing of the Ukraine war as a “diabolical Slavic civil war instigated by the decadent and deranged West” is both inflammatory and inaccurate. The Maidan Revolution of 2014 was not a Western-orchestrated coup, it was a grassroots movement driven by anger at political corruption and a desire for closer ties with Europe. Did the West support it? Absolutely. But it didn’t start it. If anything, Russian influence played a far greater role in escalating the crisis. Moscow pressured Yanukovych to abandon the EU Association Agreement, triggering the initial protests. The Kremlin later launched a massive disinformation campaign to discredit the movement as being extremist or Western-controlled. By annexing Crimea and intervening in Donbas, Russia turned what could have been a domestic crisis into an international conflict. And calling this a “civil war” conveniently ignores Russia’s central role in the destabilization of Ukraine.
Lastly, your suggestion that Russians are “well within their rights to hope for a civil war” in the United States is destructive and unserious. Wishing for the collapse of another country isn’t just cynical, it’s entirely counterproductive. Great powers don’t achieve stability by creating chaos; they achieve it through diplomacy, economic development, and cooperation. Indulging in fantasies of a rival’s destruction undermines any credibility your argument might have.
In sum, your position is riddled with contradictions, false equivalencies, and inflammatory rhetoric. Advocating for a Russian buffer zone while rejecting spheres of influence is both inconsistent and disingenuous. Russia’s claims of humanitarian intervention don’t hold up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny, they’re nothing more than a pretext for destabilization. And while I can certainly acknowledge that NATO’s treatment of Russia hasn’t been perfect, those missteps don’t justify invading a sovereign nation simply because they want to align with the west, and any suggestion otherwise is, quite frankly, laughable.
If you want to engage seriously with these issues, I suggest leaving behind the hyperbole and focusing on the facts, not conspiracies. Most stuff is available open source, or even on the deep web if you’re so inclined.
— OUR GOD HAS ALWAYS ANSWERED THE PRAYERS OF THE BELIEVERS, WHO ASK HIM •••••••
— POSSIBLY — BUT, —-OUR GOD I S G O O D , VERY GOOD….!!!!!! OH, LORD JESUS ……. HELP …!!!!!! A M E N … !!!!!!!!
— OUR GREAT LORD, AND, PRECIOUS SAVIOR I S FAITHFUL …!!!!!!! —
OH!!! LORD JESUS…!!! We ASK YOU BELIEVING INTO YOUR DIVINITY, AND, FAITHFULNESS …!!! DO SAVE US ALL - IN YOUR PRECIOUS NAME , JESUS, THE CHRIST OF GOD , AS YOU ALWAYS HAVE, BY THE STEADFASTNESS OF YOUR OWN FAITHFUL WORD…!!…!!! YOU ALONE ARE OUR G O D …!!! WE BELIEVE INTO YOU ALONE…!!! THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN DIVINE WORD, WE ASK …!!! DO SAVE ALL OF YOUR CREATION … AS YOU ALWAYS HAVE…!!!
I saw that the Russians released an infographic showing that that IRBM could hit London in 20 minutes and the other European capitols in less time. And that was launching from Russia. What if they put some of those in Kaliningrad? Then we are talking London in like 12 minutes. And Poland and Berlin in less than 5 minutes. Do you think those numbers are accurate or a little bit of inflated propaganda? That kind of speed would be a severe game changer and indefensible with conventional anti-missile systems.
No, I think an IRBM launched from Russia could likely hit all of Europe's capitals within 10-15 minutes. NATO is playing with nuclear fire.
Sometimes when I express fears of Russia and it's big military numbers, the response I get is something like "Russia's military is a paper tiger and it have been exposed in this war. Big numbers but poorly trained, poorly led, poorly equipped. And their nukes probably don't work to the corrupt system which probably fakes the maintenance." Than kind of dismissive attitude like how back in the Cold War, the Soviets couldn't make a decent clock radio or car so everything must be bad. How do you respond those kinds of arguments?
Russia has long had more advanced nuclear weapons and delivery systems than the US has. Our nukes and delivery systems are 32-64 years old. Theirs are 20 years old or less. There is a ridiculous amount of fact-denying hubris on the US side that can be very dangerous when it comes to violating Russia's redlines any one of which could be the trigger for Russian nuclear escalation.
THIS IS WELL WORTH WATCHING FROM THE 8 MIN MARK
On how Russia is likely respond to the latest NAT missile attacks with Dr. Gilbert Doctorow
https://www.youtube.com/live/mnYPH9IaDeg?si=SG6UBwsHmJQpDOYY
You say that Putin shouldn't have invaded ? I'd wager Putin regrets not invading earlier when the drama queens in the West were hysterical over a flu-like virus with a 99.99 survival rate . If he had he could have settled this quickly like he did previously in Georgia
Furthermore, the West, over the last 3 years have confirmed the very worst suspicions, insomuch, they are completely nefarious, duplicitous and deranged ; they have shown their true colours under educated idiots and overgrown schoolboys like Boris Johnson and Macron .
When Putin says they are as ''dumb and dogsheet'', he is, as usual, quite right . The only statesmen involved are Putin and Lavrov who have been showing admirable wise restraint when faced by constant provocations by western idiots
If Kamala Harris had won the last election, then that would be it ; a darwin award for the West in the form of a Russian nuclear attack, but even with Trump in control there's still danger afoot as that DC swamp slug, Biden, is spitefully doing his best to sabotage Trump's future presidency by digging a deep hole in Ukraine that he'll have trouble climbing out of . The best thing that Biden can do for his country at this stage is to simply crawl away and die somewhere
I read recently how that idiot Harris has gone on vacation to commiserate with Obama in his oceanside mansion in Hawaii . Just try to imagine the vacuous and delirious conversation that went on with those two DEI hires . Both represent everything that has gone wrong with America as the malignant fruits of the 1960s ; it would be like a scene from H G Wells's dystopian novel , ''The Island of Dr Moreau ''. It seems like a bad dream -a fevered nightmare, but Kamala Harris REALLY almost did become President of the USA - who says life isn't stranger than fiction ?
The truth is that Putin never wanted to invade Ukraine. He wanted peace with the West and wanted Russia to be included in the economic and military infrastructure of Europe. He was satisfied with Ukraine as a permanently neutral buffer state that controlled Crimea but gave Russia a permanent lease on Sevastopol naval base. Even after the Biden-authorized CIA backed overthrow of President Yanukovych and the installation of our puppet PM, Putin was satisfied with Crimea and autonomy for the Donbass region. He just wants Ukraine restored to its pre-2014 status quo as a neutral buffer state. But yes, Biden could still start a world war with Russia before Trump takes office. Its a far greater danger than most Americans realize.
Excellent interview and commentary on Brannon Howse Live regarding this topic as always.
Thanks for sharing your professional knowledge and insights on these subjects.
Personally I aways enjoy seeing you on his show and reading your articles.
Thanks! I think I've done about five interviews on his show during the last week and a half which is a new record for me.
Glad you enjoy them!
It wouldn't surprise me if Trump gets bumped off before taking office ; nor would it surprise me if its a deranged leftist woman as they tend to fly beneath the radar
Remember Lincoln in April 65 just after his greatest victory - that's how history often unfolds - triumph, then tragedy ...JFK in November 63 ?
Your argument assumes that providing Ukraine with long-range missiles escalates the risk of nuclear war, but this plays directly into Russia’s psychological warfare tactics. Moscow has consistently used veiled nuclear threats not as a genuine precursor to escalation, but to intimidate NATO and paralyze western support for Ukraine. I would contend that this is more of a calculated move to paralyze Western decision-making as opposed to a direct threat of nuclear war.
Russia has historically used nuclear threats as leverage without crossing the threshold, both during the Cold War and in more recent confrontations with NATO. The costs of nuclear escalation for Russia would be catastrophic, politically and militarily, and would alienate them from its remaining allies. Tactical nuclear use would also contaminate the very territories Russia aims to control. This is largely why these threats are rhetorical, and intended to create fear rather than actual strategy. Russia fights by using psychological warfare to paralyze the enemy before they decide to finally take action, and this is deeply embedded in the Gerasimov Doctrine that Russia has adapted to in recent years.
Russia has continuously been the escalating party here, not NATO. They ran complex psychological and cyber warfare campaigns, primarily in The Donbas but also in the rest of Ukraine, for 10 years before they finally invaded. But the biggest line they crossed is the use of the North Korean military. Yielding to these threats would only embolden Russia to continue to escalate, and NATO is effectively calling their bluff.
I think it’s key to recognize that Russia is manipulating the logic of mutually assured destruction doctrine to perpetuate a psychological attack against the west, and that any sign of weakness at this point in time will likely have the opposite effect of what’s contended, lead Russia to think it’s winning the information war, and ultimately cause further escalations by Russia.
The war in Ukraine was deliberately provoked by the US especially by Biden himself. On December 7, 2021, Putin guaranteed not to invade Ukraine if Biden issued a written guarantee that Ukraine would never join NATO yet he repeatedly refused, deliberately choosing war for Ukraine to strengthen NATO which was then struggling for a reason for its continued existence. We now have multiple statements from US government officials and French President Macron that the US has been consistently opposing Ukrainian NATO membership along with Germany. So there was no reason for Biden to withhold his guarantee to Russia and guarantee Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Likewise, Russia and Ukraine negotiated a peace deal on March 31, 2022 which would have constituted a smashing victory for Ukraine but Biden sent Boris Johnson to pressure Zelensky to rescind it and keep fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian at the cost of over a million Ukrainians dead and wounded to date.
I think Biden's irrational and incredibly dangerous escalation increases the risk of Russian nuclear escalation without question. That does not mean I believe I think Russian nuclear escalation is a likely outcome. Rather, I believe that Russia would escalate up the escalation spiral first with greater kinetic strikes including with IRBMs against Ukraine including locations where NATO military personnel is present as well as increased strikes to take down Ukraine's electrical power grid during the winter. They also have the ability to use a massive cyberattack and counterspace attacks to take down Ukraine's critical infrastructure and the Western satellites supporting their war effort. If those escalations fail to enable Russia to re-establish deterrence with the West, then I think they will likely engage in major cyberattacks against the US and NATO on a scale we have never seen before. If that fails, then they would engage in a massive cyberattack and counterspace attack against the US and NATO that would take down all of our critical infrastructure and cause all NATO nations to collapse. Presumably, nuclear and super EMP weapons would not be necessary to destroy the Western world but that is always on the table as is the use of non-strategic nuclear weapons against NATO and Ukraine which would be a more likely mode of attack.
The bottom line is that Biden's continued crossing of Russian redlines threatens the very existence not just of Ukraine but of the entire Western world regardless of whether or not Russia intends to use nuclear weapons against us or not. President-Elect Trump understands that the overriding US national security imperative must be to ensure America's survival not to risk a Third World War being fought over the neutral status of a nation located on the farthest fringes of Eastern Europe half way across the world in which the US has no discernible security interest. The US should never have sent lethal military assistance to Ukraine. Then the war would have ended with a Ukrainian victory in the form of the Istanbul Agreement in which Russia committed to withdraw Russian troops from ALL of Ukraine's prewar territory. It is ironic that $200 billion in US aid has prolonged the war and will ensure that the peace agreement that ends the war will be much less favorable to Ukraine than what it could have had over two and a half years ago.
First off, I appreciate the sub! You’re my first! Also appreciate the response, I enjoy a good debate on the topic.
I agree with you in some respects, particularly that it wasn’t necessary to allow US weapons to be used on Russian soil. I think Biden has, at times, escalated the situation unnecessarily, but much of that escalation has been reactive to Russia’s actions rather than proactive.
I would contend that the war against Ukraine can’t be solely attributed to NATO expansion or Biden’s refusal to guarantee that Ukraine would not join NATO. This invasion has been building for years, rooted in Putin’s broader ambition to reassert control over Ukraine and other former Soviet states. If you run Putin’s speeches and actions over the past two decades through a sentiment analysis, they reflect a consistent narrative tied to the concept of Russkiy Mir (“Russian World”), which frames Ukraine as an inseparable part of Russia’s historical and cultural sphere. While NATO and weak US leadership serve as a convenient scapegoats to justify the aggression, the reality is that this war is fundamentally driven by Russia’s ideological pursuit of restoring its dominance in the region and enforcing the Russkiy Mir narrative, rather than any specific provocation from the West.
I also believe the nuclear threats from Russia are primarily a form of psychological warfare. These threats are designed to intimidate NATO and deter further support for Ukraine, but history has shown us that Russia (and the Soviet Union before it) have consistently used these tactics, but never crossed that threshold. The consequences of nuclear escalation would be substantially more catastrophic for Russia itself, making it highly unlikely that Putin would cross that line unless his regime was ultimately threatened and it was a last ditch resort. Like I said, this is deeply rooted in Russia’s doctrine, and Putin likely expected it to cause more of a “tactical pause” in NATO support, but NATO has seemingly called the bluff.
That said, the NATO really needs to tread carefully now, there certainly are real risks of miscalculation. But failing to support Ukraine further would only embolden Russia further and play in to their psychological campaign. In my view, NATO needed to act years ago to counter Russia’s ambitions, but we have broadly failed to recognize and respond effectively to Russia’s cognitive, information, and cyber operations targeting NATO and its member states. These operations have been undermining democratic institutions, creating division, and weakening NATO cohesion for over a decade, which is ultimately what laid the groundwork for Russia’s aggression. This is supported by Gerasimov’s article “The Value of Science Is in the Foresight” (https://www.armyupress.army.mil/portals/7/military-review/archives/english/militaryreview_20160228_art008.pdf), and this what Russia has adopted its doctrinal principles to reflect.
Supporting Ukraine now is a necessary response to these failures, NATO has a moral obligation to ensure that the state sovereignty of the vulnerable and the rule of international law are upheld, and to send a clear message that Russian aggression will not be tolerated. The biggest question I now have is if it’s too late. NATO should have adopted this approach long ago, or at least adopted strategies to counter it.
The best way to support Ukraine would be to pressure Zelensky to negotiate an immediate end to the war along the surprisingly reasonable terms Putin offered up until July 14th. Russian Foreign Ministry officials have suggested they would be willing to accept a permanent peace deal along the current line of control walking back Putin's demand for all of the four former Ukrainian oblast. Putin has proven he is not an imperialist and Russia's invasion of Ukraine was inherently defensive to rollback NATO from Ukraine and restore the pre-2014 status quo. Neocons keep saying that Russia is bluffing with its nuclear threats but the truth is they know what their nuclear redline is and its very possible Biden and Zelensky may cross it before Trump takes office resulting in mushroom clouds over Kiev and or NATO HQ in Brussles.
You bet! Back in January 2022, I warned that Putin's invasion of Ukraine had been planned for two decades and warned he was planning to re-establish an Imperial Russian Confederation of states in which former Soviet satellites would remain nominally independent but would become subservient to Moscow if not outright satellite states like Belarus. But then Putin started proving me wrong. First in invading Ukraine with only 190,000 proving he only wanted part of Ukraine, then with the Istanbul Agreement in March 2022 in which he committed to withdrawal all Russian troops from prewar Ukrainian territory and then finally in April 2022 when he unilaterally withdrew all Russian troops from northern Ukraine including Russian troops partially surrounding Kyiv proving he didn't want Ukraine at all and that he just wanted Ukraine returned to its pre-Maidan coup neutral buffer state status. I am shocked that more Russia experts did not recalibrate their views of Putin after this massive unilateral military withdrawal at a time when Ukraine was still quite weak militarily and not fully mobilized. The truth is Putin could have annexed Ukraine at anytime but has chosen not to.
I appreciate the nuance, especially your observation that Putin’s actions don’t necessarily reflect an intent to annex or occupy all of Ukraine. Initially, I think many interpreted the scale of the invasion as a sign of broader territorial ambitions from the Kremlin. However, looking at Russia’s subsequent actions and recalibrations, it seems clear that influence has always been the driving objective.
And this aligns closely with the principles of hybrid warfare outlined by Valery Gerasimov that we know Putin is closely following.. Russia’s actions in Ukraine, from the annexation of Crimea to the destabilization of Donetsk and Luhansk, have never about seizing as much territory as possible, they’re about ensuring that Ukraine remains unable to function as an independent, Western-aligned state. The early push toward Kyiv was likely nothing more than a gamble to decapitate the government and install a regime sympathetic to Moscow, which is probably why they abandoned it so fast, unlike in the east.
That said, I do think Putin’s vision for Ukraine goes beyond neutrality. Russia has created this broader pattern of trying to deny sovereignty to its neighbours. What might appear as neutrality on paper is, in reality, submission to Moscow’s influence. This isn’t unique to Ukraine, they did the same thing in Georgia, Moldova, and Belarus. The objective has always been to assert dominance over the post-Soviet space without necessarily absorbing these nations outright.
Your point about Putin recalibrating his strategy is well taken. The withdrawals around Kyiv and other shifts in military objectives likely reflect a pragmatic adjustment to realities on the ground rather than a lack of ambition. What’s important, I think, is recognizing that Russia’s focus remains on influence and destabilization as opposed to traditional territorial conquest. This approach fits the Gerasimov Doctrine’s focus on controlled chaos and hybrid warfare. Prolonged instability in Ukraine serves Moscow’s strategic interests.
Putin attempted to resolve the Ukraine in NATO crisis through peaceful means from 2007-2022 first with his 2007 Munich Security Conference speech which was followed with Russia's proposed draft mutual security agreements with the US and NATO in 2009 and 2021. The Russian draft for NATO was entirely acceptable to me but the one they drafted for the US had three points which I found objectionable. Putin also tried to make peace in 2014 and 2015 with the Minsk I and II agreements in which he agreed to Ukrainian control of the entire Donbass region but Ukrainian leaders refused to implement the terms of the agreement and continuing bombarding the Donbass People's Republics with artillery causing 14,000 Russian speaking Ukrainians to be killed. Then Zelensky pledged to take back both the Donbass and Crimea by force in April 2021, signing two strategic partnership agreements with the US military in August 2021 and one with Biden in November 2021. Combined with both land and naval joint exercises making it a de facto member state, it caused Russia to mass its troops on Ukraine's borders with Putin offering not to invade Ukraine if Biden agreed to issue a written guarantee Ukraine would never join NATO but Biden refused and repudiated Russia's draft mutual security agreement on January 25th, 2022 provoking Russia to invade. As Sumatra Maitra has stated, Russia is a reactive power, it only invades its neighbors when it feels threatened by NATO imperial expansion.
I appreciate your perspective on Russia’s attempts at diplomacy, particularly regarding the Minsk Agreements. However, I think it’s important to critically examine the Minsk Accords, and more importantly the subsequent contradictions that arose between Russia’s actions and the commitments made under those agreements. The accords were absolutely intended to provide a framework for peace in eastern Ukraine, but Russia’s behaviour undermined the spirit of those accords, making it clear that their aims went beyond the terms of those agreements.
As you rightly point out, the accords called for a ceasefire, a withdrawal of heavy weapons, and the restoration of Ukrainian control over its borders. However, Russia continued to support separatist forces in Donetsk and Luhansk, which was in direct contradiction of these terms. Russia not only recognized the breakaway republics, but also provided them with military support, undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty and making the implementation of the accords practically impossible. The agreements specifically aimed to restore Ukrainian control over its territory, but Russia used its network of oligarchs and non-state actors so they would have “plausible deniability” on their direct involvement, and not appear to be in contradiction of the accords. They continued to send their “little green men” along with supplies, weapons, etc. to separatists, and only perpetuated the violence and instability in the region.
Further, the accords called for local elections in Donbas, these were supposed to be under Ukrainian law with international oversight. Yet Russia insisted on holding these elections in separatist-controlled areas to legitimize the breakaway republics, which just further undermined Ukrainian sovereignty. This insistence on elections that didn’t meet Ukrainian or international standards was another obstacle to peace and reconciliation. The restoration of Ukrainian border control was also a central tenet of the accords, but Russia continued to fuel the conflict by sending fighters and weapons across the border, directly contradicting the agreed-upon terms and preventing Ukraine from actually regaining control over its territory.
I agree that Putin may have initially tried to resolve the conflict through diplomacy, but the follow on actions show that the agreements themselves were used more as a political tool than a genuine path to peace. Russia’s behavior in the years following Minsk suggests that the true goal was not simply a peaceful resolution, but that Russia was set on maintaining influence over Ukraine through continued military pressure and political manipulation.
Just to clarify, I’m not excusing Ukraine’s actions in any way, but it’s crucial to understand that the situation was exacerbated by Russia’s constant undermining of the peace process. Ukraine was caught between trying to uphold its sovereignty while Russia actively continued destabilizing the country and denying meaningful peace efforts.
I think the key disagreement here is that we see Russia’s advancement of their geopolitcial objectives in different manners. Even if a peace deal is reached, I believe that Russia will continue to use other means, like disinformation, cyberattacks, and economic coercion, to destabilize Ukraine, as well as the rest of the west and NATO, and undermine its sovereignty. This is why I don’t think Russia’s ambitions will change with a peace deal alone. It’s definitely important to pursue diplomacy, but Russia has shown time and again that it will not abandon its broader strategic goals for the sake of a peace deal. Russia’s long-standing pattern of destabilizing its neighbors, combined with its behavior during the Minsk process, makes it clear that peace won’t stop Moscow from continuing its efforts to maintain influence over Ukraine and its neighbors, whether through direct military intervention or other asymmetric tactics that it is continuing to refine against NATO targets.
I'm just amazed at the wise restraint the Russians are using, that I am sure is the result of the tolerance that adults have for misbehaving teenagers . They have such contempt, even pity for the West, who they see as going out of their minds due to decadence, affluence and sexual deviancy . When Putin talks about the ''crisis of liberalism'' then he's absolutely correct as we humans can endure, even grow, with hardship and suffering, but we cannot engage in too much pleasure seeking hedonism without going off our rockers and becoming child-like . H G Wells was right again with his dystopian novel ''The Time Machine ''
You're wrong on almost everything and are merely parroting off the establishment view of things . You come across as an educated idiot who has had his worldview shaped by western (read globalist) propaganda without the merest hint of self awareness
''Great Powers have spheres of influence '' is a political maxim, and America's version of it with the 200 year old Monroe Doctrine is confirmation of it ; but apparently those pesky Ruskies in the largest country in the world-with the most nuclear bombs are not entitled to their ''buffer zone''
It was NATO in 1999 who intervened in a civil war in the former Yugoslavia by launching a 60 day bombing campaign, followed by a land invasion to wrest Serbia's historic Kosovo province from them ; so if NATO can do that, then Putin can definitely intervene in a civil war in the Donbas and take territory from them due to it clearly being in Russia's historic sphere of influence
No country in Europe has suffered as much destruction and loss of life than Russia in the 20th C , so they are bound to be concerned about their security, even if they sometimes delve into paranoia . But that's exactly why they should be given space by having a buffer zone of neutral, non aligned states on their western borders as it's just common sense as no Great Power wants a foreign military alliance camped out on their front lawn
This diabolical Slavic civil war was instigated by the decadent and deranged West, but what goes around, often comes around in a crude form of historical karma - so the long suffering Russians will be well within their rights to hope for a civil war of sorts to break out in the USA that is like a candle burning from both ends ; and if it were to then the Russians will enjoy their schadenfreude as rough justice
Let’s start with your choice to call me an “educated idiot.” If your argument is strong, it should stand on its own without the need for insults. Name-calling doesn’t strengthen your position; it simply detracts from the points you’re trying to make. If you’re serious about having a meaningful discussion, I encourage you to engage with the arguments instead of resorting to personal attacks. Now, let’s address your points.
You dismiss the concept of spheres of influence with sarcasm, yet you simultaneously argue for a Russian “buffer zone” of neutral, non-aligned states. This is a fundamentally hypocritical position. A buffer zone is, by definition, an extension of a sphere of influence, and a mechanism for a great power to maintain control over its periphery. You can’t argue that Russia has the right to a buffer zone while rejecting the validity of spheres of influence as a geopolitical reality. In fact, your argument for a buffer zone only reinforces the idea that spheres of influence exist rather than undermining it. The question isn’t whether spheres of influence exist, because they clearly do, but whether their enforcement can justify violating state sovereignty and international law.
Also, Russia’s actions in Ukraine go far beyond creating a buffer zone. These actions blatantly undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and violate the principles of the UN Charter and the Budapest Memorandum. Russia’s behavior is about far more than defence. Is defence part of it? Sure. But this is more about destabilizing Ukraine to prevent it from aligning with the West. Russia can’t claim to be defending Ukraine’s neutrality while simultaneously supporting policies that strip it of agency and reduce it to nothing more than a pawn in Moscow’s geopolitical ambitions. This is not neutrality, it’s enforced compliance under the guise of non-alignment.
Your comparison between NATO’s intervention in Kosovo and Russia’s actions in Ukraine is also deeply flawed. NATO intervened in Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing and mass atrocities that there was clear, undeniable evidence of, and the response was grounded in the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. It was certainly a controversial move, but at no point did NATO annex territory or seek to permanently control Serbia. Russia’s actions in Ukraine, which state media framed as a “humanitarian intervention,” have caused far more destruction than they claimed to prevent. If protecting Russian-speaking populations was the true motive, why escalate a conflict that has displaced millions, the majority from eastern Ukraine where the majority of the population are those they were claiming to protect? Why did they destroy critical infrastructure, and subject predominantly Russian-speaking areas like Donetsk, Luhansk, and Mariupol to relentless bombardment? If the goal was truly humanitarian, their actions have been catastrophically counterproductive. Far from safeguarding Russian-speaking populations, Russia’s military campaign has caused mass displacement, untold suffering, and the devastation of the very communities they claimed to be trying to protect. This contradiction exposes that the so-called “protection” narrative was a pretext for aggression, not a genuine motive that was rooted in concern for civilian well-being.
You also argue that “no great power wants a foreign military alliance camped out on their front lawn.” This might appeal to a realist perspective, but it oversimplifies the situation and demonstrates a pretty rudimentary understanding of how we got here. NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe wasn’t a move to provoke Russia, it was a defensive response to legitimate security concerns from the former Soviet bloc. Poland, Estonia, Lithuania all joined NATO voluntarily because they were scared of the historical threat of Russian aggression. They aren’t pawns of a Western expansionist agenda, they acted as sovereign states to ensure their own security. Clearly those fears were well founded when Russia invaded Ukraine, and effectively validated their decision.
Your point about Russia’s historical suffering is valid, and in no way do I dispute the immense amount of suffering Russia endured throughout the 20th century. Russia absolutely has a right to security, as do all nations, but that right does not extend to dominating or coercing its neighbors. Ukraine’s pursuit of NATO and EU membership reflects the will of its people, not some Western conspiracy to surround Russia. Suggesting that Ukraine should remain neutral simply to appease Russia entirely ignores the agency of Ukrainians, and the argument reduces their country to a bargaining chip in your imagined power struggle. Sovereignty matters—whether it’s Ukraine, Poland, or even Russia itself.
Additionally, your framing of the Ukraine war as a “diabolical Slavic civil war instigated by the decadent and deranged West” is both inflammatory and inaccurate. The Maidan Revolution of 2014 was not a Western-orchestrated coup, it was a grassroots movement driven by anger at political corruption and a desire for closer ties with Europe. Did the West support it? Absolutely. But it didn’t start it. If anything, Russian influence played a far greater role in escalating the crisis. Moscow pressured Yanukovych to abandon the EU Association Agreement, triggering the initial protests. The Kremlin later launched a massive disinformation campaign to discredit the movement as being extremist or Western-controlled. By annexing Crimea and intervening in Donbas, Russia turned what could have been a domestic crisis into an international conflict. And calling this a “civil war” conveniently ignores Russia’s central role in the destabilization of Ukraine.
Lastly, your suggestion that Russians are “well within their rights to hope for a civil war” in the United States is destructive and unserious. Wishing for the collapse of another country isn’t just cynical, it’s entirely counterproductive. Great powers don’t achieve stability by creating chaos; they achieve it through diplomacy, economic development, and cooperation. Indulging in fantasies of a rival’s destruction undermines any credibility your argument might have.
In sum, your position is riddled with contradictions, false equivalencies, and inflammatory rhetoric. Advocating for a Russian buffer zone while rejecting spheres of influence is both inconsistent and disingenuous. Russia’s claims of humanitarian intervention don’t hold up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny, they’re nothing more than a pretext for destabilization. And while I can certainly acknowledge that NATO’s treatment of Russia hasn’t been perfect, those missteps don’t justify invading a sovereign nation simply because they want to align with the west, and any suggestion otherwise is, quite frankly, laughable.
If you want to engage seriously with these issues, I suggest leaving behind the hyperbole and focusing on the facts, not conspiracies. Most stuff is available open source, or even on the deep web if you’re so inclined.