Comments by "John Adam" (@johnadam2885) on "Anders Puck Nielsen"
channel.
-
113
-
27
-
22
-
16
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@jesan733 You are indulging in a vague plea that America does not incite wars. But somehow you are always embroiled in all wars on the planet - Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Ukraine/Russia.
Then you argue America has no financial and social problems arising from sponsoring conflicts the world over. Alright then, carry on !
'People conflate budget deficit and printing dollars. It's not the same thing, and the problems are vastly overblown. '
You forced the Saudis and others to sell oil only in dollars; and when the Iraqis and Libyans tried to sell in Euros, like Saddam and Gaddafi, you invaded and did regime change. Why ? You should have let them sell oil in whatever currency they wanted.
As a result of the wars you engaged in, the rest of the world wants alternatives to the dollar. Russia and China are leading this effort. We see trade emerging slowly in national currencies, the Chinese and Saudis are selling off US treasuries and buying gold. As more and more countries settle bills without using dollars, you will weaken. You are putting on a brave face. But you will see the US will lash out and engage in more reckless wars to preserve the dollar.
The lasting and most impactful blow that Russia has delivered the US is de-dollarisation. It has kicked off the movement, and others have joined the bandwagon. Considering the fact that the US went to war to stop Saddam and Gaddafi selling oil in other currencies, it is sure the US is very concerned - but it cannot go to war against big boys like Russia and China who have the capacity to incinerate US cities. If it were not for that, you would have done what you did to Iraq and Libya.
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Amusing to hear this joker Nielsen asking 'Why did experts fail to predict Russia's invasion of Ukraine?'. He claims he got it right.
The reason is western experts did not heed Putin's warning on NATO expansion, and thought that Putin was bluffing. In any case, the west was supreme, Ukraine with NATO weapons and training would defeat Russia, sanctions would make the rouble rubble, the whole world would rally round the west, and there will be an uprising in Moscow.
The surprising thing is why Nielsen is posing such a question now. His previous videos were euphoric on how Ukrainians had nailed Russia in Kursk.
To raise such a question now is an admission the war is lost for the west, and the soul searching and blame game have started. The EU will say the US abandoned Ukraine; Trump will say it is Europe's problem and the war was due to Biden; the British will say the US and EU did not have the Churchillian resolve of the British. They hate to accept the reality : Russia is more powerful than the collective west, and NATO is a paper tiger.
Now Nielsen knows the west has lost. Russia is going to finish off Donbass and move forward to the Dnieper, and then it will chase out the Ukrainians from Kursk. The US will not give the irresponsible British permission to strike Russia with missiles, as Russia has promised it will attack Britain and the US does not want to fight a nuclear war to save anyone else.
Instead of asking ''Why did experts fail to predict Russia's invasion of Ukraine?', the question is why did your experts not listen to Russia and accept that NATO expansion was a threat to Russia, and Russia would take action ?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Anders is a joker. He says that Ukraine is doing very well in Kursk. But is it relevant ? Ukraine cannot advance in Kursk, it is pinned down, its rear in Sumy is attacked, and its soldiers and equipment in Kursk are being hunted down.
Anders goes out of his way to say the situation in Prokvorsk is not critical and the Russians have not won the war even if they take it ! All options covered.
The numskull is trying to hold back a fart and put on a brave face ! He says it is going to take a long time to take Provorsk (like Bakhmut). No, that is not correct. Ukraine has just 5 brigades in Provorsk. Provorsk is a key logistical transport hub on which supply lines for the Ukrainians depend all along the eastern front. When that falls, the effect is big.
Then he says even if Provorsk falls, so what, there will be a new front line ! That front line may not have time to form. There are no massive fortifications built further west.
Another of his feeble lines is 'Look it took Russia 6 months to advance 10 km, so it will take years for Russia to take a city'. It does not work like that. Initially, the defending side has the manpower and equipment, and the attacking side's penetration will be slow. But when the defending side's manpower and equipment is reduced to a low level, the resistance will crumble at one point - and the floodgates open. Novohrodvika was taken in 3 days intact and that was a key supply centre. Several other small towns were taken intact because there was little resistance. When some Ukrainian military officials say the Donbass frontline is crumbling, why is Anders so eager to lie on behalf of Ukrainians ?
Ukraine's last days will be like Nazi Germany's against the Red Army. There were many Nazi supporters who believed Germany could turn the tide, it had miracle weapons etc.
2
-
Note that Russia is not asking for peace talks. The instigator of the conflict, the US, wants to be the peacemaker now ! The US instigated the coup in Ukraine in 2014 which brought Nazi style Ukrainian nationalists to power, who sought NATO entry. The project failed, and the US wants to leave.
Whether there is peace or not after the peace talks is irrelevant. The fact is the US wants to give up on Ukraine. Peace talks will be on Russian terms. Ukraine has to be neutral, there will be no NATO bases in Ukraine AND Ukraine has to surrender Donbass. No European forces will be allowed in Ukraine as peacekeepers. Those are the entry terms for Russia.
If the US does not agree, Russia will continue and take by force the remaining part of Donbass, and advance to the Dnieper, and also go for Odessa. No one can stop it.
Time is on Russia's side. US support is going, the Europeans cannot step in and if they continue their suicidal polices, the current European leaders are going to swept away by 'nationalist' or Nazi governments that do not want to support the war. Russia just killed a Danish F16 instructor. No western govt. will be able to send forces to Ukraine as the Russians will kill them and there will be uproar in the western public.
Peace talks taking several years suits Russia. Russia is adept at the long chess game. Due to Trump, NATO weakens, tariffs mean the trans Atlantic alliance is over, and neo Nazi governments want Dexit and Frexit, so end of the EU. The west is falling apart.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There is no risk of a NATO-Russia war. Without the US, NATO is empty. No US President will fight Russia directly - the US knows it will lead to US cities to be incinerated. Russia has the nuclear weapons and superb and proved delivery systems that can arrive at hypersonic speeds.
Long ago, Kissinger had said the US will not fight a nuclear war with the Soviet Union to save Germany and Europe. That has not changed.
Anders knows the war is lost for the west, he blames it on Trump, and he fearmongers that Trump's line will lead to NATO-Russia war. He hopes with this fear mongering, Trump will change his mind and somehow continue to support Ukraine.
When the US will not fight Russia, NATO will not fight Russia despite tall talk by useless people like Rutte, Kajas, Poles, Swedes, Finns etc.
With this video, Anders is accepting the inevitable : Russia has prevailed.
2
-
2
-
The sort of nonsense Nielsen spouts is of the same variety as Russia shelled the nuclear installaton it owns in Zaphorizia, or that it used a missile to destroy a POW camp housing Azov Nazis. Were those also because they are losing the war and their mental equilibrium is affected ?
Nielsen's starting point is his assumption that Russia is losing the war and Ukraine and the west is winning. This is self consoling western propaganda. The fact is Russia has taken 20% of Ukraine, it is strangling Ukraine's economy, it has cut off Ukrainian exports from the Black Sea. Russia is even strangling the western economy, successfully. It is de-industrialising Europe.
The strong cards are in Russia's hands. Ukraine has made some advances here and there, but it is not sufficient to roll back Russia. Russia holds the nuclear sword and can use it.
If 'crazy Russia' self sabotaged the Nordstream pipeline, then they can go and do the same to the Baltic pipeline, and use the nuclear weapon in Ukraine. Can Nielsen tell us what the west can do if 'crazy Russia' does these two things ? Put more sanctions ? Go to the UN ? Shout about war crimes ?
The west feels defeated as Putin has punctured its 'international order', The west does not have the military power or the courage to fight Russia directly, and does not have the economic power it imagined it had. All such analyses based on pyschological conditions of the opponent are indicators of the wishful thinking of the defeated. We heard similar psycho analysis of Putin's state of mind in the first month, the western media said he had a hand tremor, he had cancer, and he did not sit with others as he was distrustful. Yet, the ex tempore speech that Putin gave recently on re-taking the four provinces was brilliant. No western leader can speak with the same knowledge of history and geopolitical understanding as Putin.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mindbodyinstitute2652 'If NATO had to win and committed to doing so Russia stands zero chance'.
You are giving theoretical estimates of NATO strengths and claiming superiority over Russia in every which way : population, economic size, technology, combined military assets.
However, one has to go by battlefield performance. The fact is Russia has destroyed all vaunted western weapons : HIMARS, Leopards, Challengers, Abrams, Storm Shadows, Patriots. The west does not have 155 mm shells. Russia blunted the NATO led Ukrainian 2023 counter offensive, and has attacked and taken most of Donbass. The Russian soldier is hardy and determined, and they are patriotic.
The fact is the US now wants a ceasefire and negotiations. Why not continue if you have superior arms and economy ? The US has said Ukraine must accept it cannot regain 2014 borders let alone 1991; Ukraine cannot be in NATO and the US will not supply peace keeping troops. Europe is in a bind on the peace keeping formula. Russia will not agree to EU troops. Russia has therefore won.
NATO (despite its strength on paper) is incapable of winning a war. We saw that in Afghanistan. Against Russia, it has no chance - as the outcome in Ukraine proves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wwlb4970 Ukraine was part of Russia. Russians and Ukrainians did not have a very differentiated identity, they were intermarried and Ukranians were leaders of the Soviet Union, like Krushchev, Brezhnev, Chernenko. When given independence, the Ukrainians could not manage, they descended into neo Nazi Russophobic nationalism, encouraged by the US. Once the US infiltrates, that country is destroyed. It is characteristic of Anglo Saxons to seize on differences and instigate conflicts everywhere. War for profit is their culture. They have done that to break up the Ottoman empire (pit Arabs against Turks), in India pit various communities against each other to partition it, just to name a few. They have done the same in Ukraine. Except Russia is a superpower, it will fight and smash anyone that threatens it. That is the bottom line. Get it ? Ukraine is not in a position to fight Russia, with or without western support. The Ukraine of 1992 is not coming back, just get over it, don't waste your money on lost causes. The west is declining, it has enough problems, de-industrialisation, dying populations due to low fertility, anxiety about immigration, the western financial grip on the world is slipping as Russia and China drive de-dollarisation. I would not waste my time fighting lost causes. A new world order had emerged due to Russia and China, and the rest of the world will go with it. The west can fit into that or it fizzle out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Princip666 Can you read up about the Azov Batallion and Right Sector, two Ukro Nazis groups in govt. and the army, which took part in the coup of 2014 ? Andrei Biletsky, the founder of Azov, said he wanted to save the white race from Jews and untermenschen.
The US branded the Azov Batallion as terrorist, but in 2023, it shamelessly lifted the ban to allow arms to be supplied to the Azov Batallion. The Russians hammered the Azov Batallion in Mariopol, killed many and took them prisoner. They are identifiable by their Nazi tattoos.
During the WW 2, Ukro Nazis were active in western Ukraine supporting the German Nazis. Their leader was Stefan Bandera. There was a SS division of Ukrainians. The Germans often chose Ukrainians to be concentration camp guards in Poland. After defeat of Nazi Germany, Bandera escaped to West Germany and was given asylum in Munich. The US shamelessly recruited this Nazi Bandera to work against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union eliminated Bandera in 1958.
After the US sponsored coup in Ukraine in 2014, roads have been named after Bandera in Ukraine, and statues have been erected of this wannabe Ukrainian Hitler.
There is nothing imaginary, it shows you are ready to support Nazis to gain advantage against Russia. Shameless scum.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrBahjatt 'Nielsen is an idealist.....'
I do not think so, he has a typical western colonial mindset which believes in innate superiority, the belief that the west sets the rules for others, but can flout any rules when needed. Nielsen is a neocon, the same as Boris Johnson, Blinken, Biden etc...
'He doesn't think NATO expansion should be seen as a threat to Russia.'
Whether it is a threat or not is decided by Russian perceptions. He should know that Russia has been the victim of countless invasions, the last one being from Nazi Germany. Soviet casualties were 20 million. Hence, the Russians are paranoid (with good reason) about being attacked. It was highly insensitive of the US to push NATO expansion.
Russia does not fear any of the Europeans. They know the Germans, British and the French are yesterday's powers. The British talk big and act Churchillian because of US cover. But the US is the threat. The Russians know NATO is just a cover for the US. The US plan was to have naval and missile bases in Ukraine to shut off Russia from the Black Sea. There is Rand Corp. report which the CIA commissioned on how to contain Russia, and it actively describes methods to stir up anti-Russian sentiments in surrounding countries.
'He doesn't know that it is a threat and may not know the Manroe doctrine.'
If he does not know what is Monroe Doctrine, he should not make videos. He knows everything.
1
-
@SVSky You have view that is self absolving. It was the US that pushed NATO expansion. Merkel and Sarkozy warned against inducting Ukraine, fearing to would lead to war - but Bush twisted their hand. It was the US that financed the 2014 coup in Ukraine that brought neo Nazi, anti Russian nationalists into power. From that day on war was inevitable.
You have not bailed out anyone, you created the Ukrainian problem with the 2014 coup - and you are going to walk away. This is after saying you will support Ukraine for however long it takes, after refusing to reply to Putin's request to guarantee Russia's security, and after scuttling the peace agreement reached by Ukraine and Russia in Turkey. The US incited the war, you dragged Europe into it, you blocked the peace agreement in Turkey, and now that you are defeated, you say Ukraine is Europe's problem, we are sick and tired of your wars! Shameless fellow.
Europe and Ukraine are at fault no doubt - for consenting to be US vassals. They deserve what they are getting. But don't put on airs of innocence. Get it, scumbag ?
1
-
The British below are fondly quoting Churchill as if he was a great savant. Churchill went to see Stalin and prostrated himself to get Soviet support. If Churchill had been around, he would have behaved just like BoJo, Sunak, Starmer. He would have talked big about the need to fight Russia, but would have expected America to do it for him.
As it is, America created the crisis in Ukraine by staging the coup in 2014, and now it wants to exit after seeing the mire. But the British want to be more American than the Americans, thinking it is a great Churchillian moment for them to shine and save the free world !
Boris Johnson stated recently that Russia must be defeated as otherwise it ends western hegemony (his exact words). No doubt that is the thinking of the collective west. But the collective west has been defeated in Ukraine, as the US is looking to exit, and EU + UK cannot save Ukraine. Western hegemony is ended for good. There is a new world order, the west can join it. Churchill was the epitome of western hegemony but it is not sustainable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AlexKarasev 'The Germans and the Poles are pretty good in that regard also, to be fair, but that's about it'
I don't think present day Germans can fight. The Red Army gave them such a thrashing that the German temperament has changed, and they have become a peaceful nation ! Mind you, neo Nazis are awakening in Germany, but fighting Russia does not appeal to them anymore.
I don't know why you think the Poles can fight. In the WW 2, they were over run by the Germans, till the Red Army came and liberated Auschwitz. The Poles are barking chichuas. They are rabid xenophobes, with an inferiority complex. They badmouth the Russians, and Germans also (while demanding money from Germany). But I don't think they can fight. When Russia moved some of those Wagner musicians near to the Polish border, the Poles had a shaking fit.
The British and Anglo Saxons are Russophobes. They do not have fighting ability, but they have great manipulative skills, and are masters at using proxies. The British ruled India by pitting one group against another, telling the Hindus and Muslims there they were different; they broke the Ottoman empire by inciting the Arabs against the Turks, when they had a lot in common as Muslims; now they and the Americans have pitted the Ukrainians against the Russians, telling the Ukrainians they are Europeans and they have nothing in common with Russians. The Anglo Saxons want to break up Russia like they broke the Ottoman empire, this time using the Ukrainians. Make no mistake of their intentions.
The fighting ability of the British in the past has been based on using Indian soldiers (Sikhs, Muslims, Gurkhas etc.) to fight their wars. They cannot do that anymore, so now they try to use the Americans to fight for them. Starmer went to see Biden to incite him to give Ukrainians the licence to fire their missiles into Russia. But the Americans refused as they are like the Brits, they don't want to die. If you look at the American army, it is full of Hispanics who were given citizenship in exchange for being a fighting force for the US.
The only one left in NATO who can fight that you missed out are the Turks ! They have the largest army in NATO, and they too are brave fighters. However, the Turks will never fight for the Anglos because they know how the British are.
In summary, NATO is a paper tiger, an expensive and cumbersome bureaucracy, run and controlled by the Americans, but the minor vassal states like Norway, Baltics etc. are given the post of Secretary General etc. They praise themselves as the richest and most powerful alliance, but none apart from the Turks can fight, and the Turks won't fight for any NATO cause ! The Ukrainians can fight, NATO would love to have them, but Russia has stopped that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@trytwicelikemice3190 The problem is the Baltics and Poland have become belligerent, and they are living dangerously because they think they have US support. Ukraine also thought the same, and tried to misbehave with Russia, and it got beaten into a pulp.
Look at Lithuania. In 2022, it tried to show off by organising a blockade of Russian trains to Kaliningrad, piously stating it was enforcing EU sanctions. Lithuania's independence was based on giving Russian trains to Kaliningrad a land corridor. Two weeks later a Russian politician said it was time to reconsider Lithuania's independence. The media reported Russia can seize the Suwalki corridor and cut off the Baltics. Within a few days, Lithuania climbed down and abandoned the blockade. If it had not, Russia would have seized the Baltics regardless of Article 5 - and the Lithuanians would have found the US would not come to fight for it, and the rest of the Europeans are useless.
As for Poland, it acts like America's attack dog. Putin reminded that Poland was a gift of Stalin. If it had been left to Germany, there would be no Poland. The Poles were unable to free themselves from the Germans. If they had waited for the British, they would have been waiting a long time. It was the Red Army that got to Auschwitz and freed the Poles. Stalin could have incorporated Poland into the Soviet Union, but he did not. Stalin gave one of the Red Army's greatest generals, Konstantin Rokossovsky, a Polish officer who became a Marshall of the Soviet Union, to become Poland's defence minister. I would advise the Poles not to be ingrates.
So don't put on self-righteous airs about the Baltics, Poland, EU and NATO. You want to bait the bear, then don't cry when the bear mauls you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Victory for the Ukraine is not possible, and the leaders know it. Biden's strategy for Ukraine is to try to prevent it collapsing before elections. If Biden wins, he will delegate Ukraine management to the Europeans, who are useless. He will focus on his next war against China. If Trump wins, that is curtains for Ukraine, he will not even pretend otherwise, and he may also withdraw from NATO.
Hence, don't indulge in wishful thinking, the Ukraine war was lost in 2023. Ukraine cannot retrieve Crimea and the four oblasts, and if it persists, it will lose more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@angusmatheson8906 'Baker had no authority, it was off the record...'
You mean you want something for nothing. Listen son, with Russia either you play straight, or you don't play at all. If you agree to pay 10 roubles, they will not ask for more, or settle for less. If you indulge in your customary mischief and try to cheat afterwards, they will punch you in the face. Get it ?
'russias actions prove that NATO membership is pretty crucial to prevent Pooty from playing soldier'
So has Ukraine got NATO membership after Russia's action ? Biden said in the Vilnius NATO summit in 2023 Ukraine cannot join NATO and there is no road map. Lately, Blinken made statements that Ukraine will join NATO after the war - it is face saving statement to hide defeat. After the war, there will be no more Ukraine to join NATO.
If Ukraine had not announced after the US sponsored coup of 2014 it wanted to join NATO, Ukraine would have had the borders of 1991, including Crimea. The day it announced it wanted to join NATO, Putin took back Crimea. And Ukraine lost 4 more oblasts, and is in the process of losing more.
Then what evidence is your statement of NATO membership being advantageous, based on ? You are a numskull.
1
-
1
-
@williamzk9083 The rejection of western hegemony disguised as the 'rules based international order' by the rest of the world burns deeply in your western soul. Russia, China, India, Brazil, Iran and Muslim countries reject it and that is causing burning.
Here is the proof. In 2022, Boris Johnson said 'we must not let Putin win, as it would end the rules based international order' according to which the west sets the rules, and flouts them when convenient (as in Iraq). In 2024, Boris Johnson said that victory for Putin means end of western hegemony (that is the term he used). He was pleading with Trump not to allow a Russian victory.
Clearly, from Boris Johnson 's words, 'rules based international order' means western hegemony. He knows what is at stake.
You need to get real : Russia has created a new world order with BRICS, it has triggered de-dollarisation, and weakened NATO with a superior arsenal which the west cannot match. The west's main asset was its control of the financial system, and that is undergoing change too, and Russia and China are going to drive it. Ex Soviet states are irrelevant in the global importance of what Russia has done.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nigelgarrett7970 The British were claiming Challengers are invincible. The Americans said the same about Abrams. All because they could fight in Iraq against opposition that did not have the latest. But when the Challengers, Leopards and Abrams came out in Ukraine, Russia destroyed them. The Ukrainian counter offensive failed despite these, cluster bombs, Himars. True or not ?
'....just that they are better than the Soviet and Russian ones'
That is a conviction born out of conceit. Where is the evidence ? Russia destroyed all types of your equipment. Your equipment is junk, NATO has not fought a war that it has won, nor have the British, French or Americans. The way NATO ran away from Kabul proves you are cowards, and you cannot fight. The Russians have combined arms warfare capability that no one else has. That is tanks, drones, missiles, thermobaric weapons, hypersonic missiles, electronic jamming all working together. They have unused capability in anti-satellite destruction and nuclear weapons, so they hold the nuclear sword above you.
And the Russians can fight - you saw in Bakhmut, and how they torched the Ukro Nazis in Mariopol. The collective west cannot match Russia. You may recall the Red Army beat Germany into a pulp. Like that the Russians can beat NATO into a pulp. Britain can be finished with a single hypersonic Sarmat missile.
If for a moment you really believed your weapons were better and you thought you could win, you would have sent troops to Ukraine. But you know you will be killed on a scale you did not experience before.
1
-
1
-
'Their entire economy is worth less than that of Italy. Or, about the same as Belgium + Netherlands.'
That is a simplistic and immature analysis. It depends what is in the economy of Italy or Belgium + Netherlands.
Russia produces oil and gas; metals and alloys (even now Boeing uses the titanium Russia produces); it produces gold; it is the biggest producer of wheat; it has control of the entire nuclear supply chain (the US did not sanction this); it makes hypersonic missiles (even the US cannot make it); it makes submarines, ICBMs, drones, thermobaric weapons; it launches its own satellites, it has its own GPS; it has expertise in cyber and electronic warfare.
Can Italy, Belgium + Netherlands, do the above ? Idiot !
'And yes, they will run out of equipment, its happening already as we can see with their use of motorcycles, Chinese 'golf carts' etc. '
In Bakhmut, British intelligence said Russia had run out of guns and their soldiers were fighting with shovels. In 2022, they said they had run out of chips, and were using washing machine chips. Biden had said in the first month the rouble will be rubble.
Did any of that happen ? Idiot !
You have lost the war and you are mired in your delusions. If Russia was not a power, and you thought you could win, you would have sent troops to Ukraine. But a single hypersonic Sarmat missile will wipe out Italy, Belgium, Netherlands in the blink of an eye. And the US will look the other way. So don't fool yourself.
1
-
@Polygarden It is not even worse for Russia. Russia is bigger than all the countries of Europe combined, and it has many resources. Russia is self sufficient. - besides oil and gas, it controls the nuclear fuel supply chain, it mines gold and diamonds, it is the largest wheat and fertiliser producer, it produces metals like titanium and other alloys (Boeing buys titanium from Russia).
Russia launches its own satellites, it has its own GPS, it makes planes, it makes arms, it has set up alternative banking channels. No one in Europe is capable of this. Russia has not outsourced its manufacturing.
'The Netherlands, Belgium and other European powers are managing to produce industrial goods which Russia is depending on.'
Russia does not depend on minor countries like Netherlands, Belgium...Can you launch a satellite, have your own GPS, can you make titanium ? The French and the US cannot run their nuclear power plants without Russian input. Netherlands, Belgium are unimportant vassals of the US.
You pretend alternative energy is replacing fossil fuels. No one is coming off oil and gas soon. That includes US and Norway.
1
-
Anders is at last being realistic - this is his first admission that the war is lost for the west ! He cannot go on about Ukrainian victory in Kursk.
Anders is right that for Russia it is not a war for land. But he is not right that the war for Russia is for political control. Russia's number one motivation is security : it cannot allow US missile and naval bases in Ukraine. The US ambition was to cut off Russia's access to the Black Sea. Sevastopol in the Crimea is the HQ of the Russian Black Sea fleet, and if Russia had not retaken Crimea, the US 7th Fleet would be sailing from it.
He proposes another type of devious western argument that if Ukraine joined the west, it would become prosperous and Russia did not want that. First of all, it is an assumption joining the west would make Ukraine prosperous. Ukraine was in the hands of oligarchs, mostly Jews, who sucked out its wealth - like Ihor Kolomvosky, who financed Zelensky (all Jews). And on the other side, you had Jews like Victoria Nuland, Black Rock, Blinken etc.
Earlier Putin said he had no objection to Ukraine joining the EU, as that is an economic alliance, but NATO is a military alliance directed against Russia. Now Russia will not allow Ukraine to join the EU as lately the EU has acted like NATO. Hence, it is s devious argument Anders makes that Russia's aim is to prevent Ukraine joining the west and becoming prosperous - that is a typical western self image of superiority. It is like Bush saying the Muslims did not like America's freedoms, so they struck it; whereas it is related to US support of Israel. Russia wants to be prosperous, it has no objection to Ukraine being prosperous. But the problem is the US wanted to put missile and naval bases to threaten Russia's prosperity. That is is not on.
Anyhow, despite Anders belief that the war is to prevent Ukraine from becoming prosperous, he now knows that the Russians will win. Ukraine has to cede what it lost and it cannot be in NATO - that is the starting Russian line now for negotiations. Earlier, Russia only asked Ukraine to be neutral. Now it cannot join NATO and it has to cede land. If it does not agree, Russia is in a position to continue and take more and decapitate Ukraine. And the west cannot stop it. Trump knows the US does not have the money and arms. And the Europeans cannot fight Russia.
Ukraine is only a pawn. Boris Johnson stated that if Russia won it will end the rules based international order which was a fig leaf for western hegemony. Since Boris and Anders and their ilk now realise that Russia has won, the most important Russian achievement is they ended western hegemony. The rest of the world salutes the Russians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Joker Anders has put a face-saving video saying 'we do not know what Trump will do'. Nothing to worry about !
Let us face the reality. NATO expansion into Ukraine was a US project. The US engineered the coup in 2014 in which Ukro Nazis groups like Azov Batallion and Right Sector were thrust to power, thanks to the machination of that wicked neocon Jew Victoria Nuland (wife of neocon Jew Robert Kagan, an architect of the Iraq war).
The Ukraine project has failed, the US does what it always does, just withdraw and hand over the debris to others. Supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes was supporting Ukraine till Biden was in place. The EU is not blameless, it too ganged up with the US against Russia, putting sanctions, thieving Russian assets and sending military equipment to Ukraine.
But Russia defeated the collective west. At the end of the day, Russia had the capacity to stay on for as long as it takes to ensure there will be no NATO bases in Ukraine, and the US and the west did not have the capacity.
So the blame game has started. Trump says it is a European problem, they should handle it. The Europeans say that the US wanted NATO expansion, it should not be our problem. Ukraine thinks it is the west that is to blame.
But it is Europe's problem. Long ago de Gaulle had warned if there is war in Europe, Europe faces the worst consequences because at the end of the day, the Americans do not live in Europe, and the British live on an island. The US and UK will be the inciters of wars, but they don't want the consequences.
The Europeans need to come to their senses. At the end of the day, they share the continent with Russia. None of the Europeans individually or collectively can beat Russia. UK, France and Germany were powers - in the past, not now. Russia in contrast is too awesome. No one has the manpower, raw courage and the arsenal Russia has.
The Israel project is going to be another defeat for the collective west. Israel is the last outpost of western colonialism, hence the western support. But it is unsustainable. The Ukraine and Israel projects spell the doom of the collective west and western colonialism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bluebandites These 'insane losses' are western claims designed to make you feel Russia's achievement is futile. Have you gone and counted Russia's casualties ? Or you just blindly believe what British and US intelligence say ? British intelligence has put out preposterous nonsense like Russians ran out of missiles, they are using chips from washing machines, their infantry ran out of shells and they had to fight with shovels in Bakhmut, their morale is very low etc. If they lie on these, surely they will lie on casualties as well.
Look at the reality. The west says Ukraine lost 30,000 and Russia lost 500,000. Russia fires 10x shell as Ukraine - according to Zelensky. Who is likely to have more casualties ? Ukraine does not have manpower to fight at the front, but Russia has. Ukraine is forcibly taking people off the streets and sending them without too much training to the front. Ukrainian forces are now disobeying orders and some have surrendered.
Russia's purpose was not to gain land per se; they have plenty of land. Their objectives are security driven. They want to make it clear to the US it cannot have naval bases in Ukraine to threaten Russia (Russia is ready to fight a nuclear war if needed to prevent US bases in Ukraine), to de-Nazify Ukraine (kill off Azov Batallion, Right Sector and other Ukro Nazi groups) and to demilitarise Ukraine (it will not have army and military production again).
To achieve these goals, they have to attack Ukraine as Ukraine after the US led coup of 2014 was not voluntarily agreeing to the neutrality it committed itself at the time of independence. Russia then has to enforce neutrality. To do that, it has to occupy Ukraine just like the Red Army had to occupy Germany to evict Hitler and Nazism, and enforced demilitarisation of Germany. In the case of Germany, the Soviets did not annex it. In the case of Ukraine, as some of the areas have Russian population and were built by Russia historically (like Crimea, Donbass, Odessa, Kharkhov and Kiev), these will have to be returned to Russia. Putin has to honour the sacrifices of the Russian soldiers who take these places, so he cannot return them even if Ukraine is de-Nazified and demilitarised. These Russian areas were gifted to Ukraine in 1992, out of goodwill, under the understanding Ukraine will be a neutral state and not part of any military alliance. Ukraine under US incitement reneged on neutrality, it walked away from the peace negotiations and compromise in Turkey, under US and UK tutelage, so it cannot complain if it does not exist anymore. They chose their destiny.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1