Posted on 07/17/2023 6:48:08 PM PDT by UMCRevMom@aol.com
Update from Ukraine | Kerch Bridge Kaboom | Grain Deal Cancelled | Ruzzia Lost again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b95zlfbW9yE
The summary of the situation of Russian re-invasion to Ukraine covering the last 48 hours, as of 12th July 2023 – 22:00
https://militaryland.net/news/invasion-day-504-summary/
*** Great interactive map with viewer controlled Map magnification tool to use for each Front!
https://militaryland.net/maps/
Ok...Putin lover
Get off of Putin’s salties.
Why aren’t you blasting the people using these munitions all around the world? Why aren’t you demanding proxy wars in those places too? Why? Because when your media masters ignore it, you ignore it. I, on the other hand, do not support unprovoked US proxy wars to attempt to right every real and imaginary wrong the warmongers in DC find. I will blast anyone who uses these weapons in my name and buy and distribute them with my tax dollars. If you had any compassion, you’d do the same.
Apparently, you have been totally cool with CBs being used in war crimes against civilians by the Russians since the first week they invaded, and now that a safer, more advanced version of the weapons will be used against Russian military targets, you are freaking out and morally outraged.
Actually I have successfully found the long video by the British historian about Russia and Ukraine, using the method you suggested.
youtube.com/watch?v=T7uwtNoWBK0
Here is detailed info given at the video site.
2,170,531 views Aug 3, 2022
This ANU Public Lecture by Emeritus Professor PAUL DIBB of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre examines why President Putin decided to invade the Ukraine and what the implications are for international order, including the risk of a wider war in Europe and the potential use of nuclear weapons.
Below is the CORRECTED link for the long lecture by British historian Paul Dibbs which appears in mistaken form at comments #168 and #167.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7uwtNoWBK0
2,170,531 views Aug 3, 2022
“This ANU Public Lecture by Emeritus Professor Paul Dibb of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre examines why President Putin decided to invade the Ukraine and what the implications are for international order, including the risk of a wider war in Europe and the potential use of nuclear weapons.”
“We now have learned that Prigozhin fielded a political action in the US during the 2015/16 election which resulted in the Trump election. To what degree was something similar activated in the UK?”
Masks off for these globalists.
Pro Ukraine also turns out to be 2016 Russia Steal and Putin did Brexit.
Surprise, surprise surprise !
LOL - did I call it or what? I said his response would be laced with lies. And it’s just more of that circular B.S. the FRUkrainians do. That’s why I end these conversations promptly. They’ll keep you in their weird little loop all day long if you let ‘em. 😆
I found that Paul Dibbs video almost right away using the information you put up in your original post - but he was described as Aussie-affiliated.
Actually, though - eminent Australian historians would no doubt do a turn or two in the motherland of Britain.
Russia in the post-Soviet era did not NEED to rebuild imperial Russia in any sense and did not even NEED to continue the “cold war” (nuclear arms) with the west.
Japan is protected by oceans.
The borders of Russia are a stone marker in a farmer’s field.
Russia is always vulnerable to a land invasion. Not only that, for the entire border with Ukraine, there is farmland with dozens of parallel roads and no natural barriers until you get to the outskirts of Moscow.
No wonder they are not blasé about having a hostile alliance like NATO right up to that border.
“No wonder they are not blasé about having a hostile alliance like NATO right up to that border.”
That is bass ackwards.
Putin did not have to maintain a hostile stance toward the west, did not have to push the former Soviet Warsaw pact countries into thinking they too should be part of NATO. It was Putin who decided to keep the hostile “standoff” with the west.
Canada and the U.S. share a border like Ukraine and Russia.
The parallel to what Putin was doing would be if the peace between Canada and the U.S. was not gpod enough for the U.S., that the U.S. demanded Canada become part of the U.S.
That does not happen because neither Canada or the U.S. is ruled by a dictator bent on reviving a lost empire.
Sharing a long and vulnerable border does not automatically make belligerents. But when one is striving to develop a real democracy and the other is ruled by a dictator who does not want the other to be independent, then that border can be a problem.
With a fully free and democratic Russia, the Russians would have been able to see that an indpendent Urkaine was not a threat. But that is not the Russia we have.
Canada and the U.S. share a border like Ukraine and Russia.
The parallel to what Putin was doing would be if the peace between Canada and the U.S. was not gpod enough for the U.S.,
You got to be kidding !
If by some miracle we could break free of the Trudeau Regime, and started reversing course, on abortion, LGBT, NATO, “free trade”, mass immigration... the first thing that would happen is we would get a US directed “Color Revolution” and a Canadian Zelensky would be installed.
Exit from the USA Globohomo Empire is no more possible than Hungary ‘56, Prague ‘68.
As I said. The difference is the choice of nations not be beligerents with each other in the first place and not be ruled by real dictators in the second place.
It has been Putin’s decision to remain a beligerant with NATO and the west in the post Soviet era. That did not have to be and he did not have to create a dictatorship. Minus both those elements, Russia would not have sought Urkaine to lose its independence and their shared border would not be a security issue.
Putin continues a Russian problem. Creating security issues that mask it really just seeks donomination of its neighbors and then claims the other nation’s mutual defense measures with others is the issue.
Serbia didn’t choose to be a belligerent with NATO, but they were attacked anyway.
No only that, they had a province of their country severed off and given to someone else.
NATO is an aggressive and tyrannical force that should have been disbanded in 1991.
Now, I just hate Biden and DNC... 38 yes of my life in the military and foreign service. We created this war. Russia will end it.
I’ve been out all day and other than popping in a couple of times, wasn’t able to catch up until now. I must remark on how succinctly this captures what the consortium does. Well done.
You have accurately quoted the sentence I wrote in comment #172 as saying: “We now have learned that Prigozhin fielded a political action in the US during the 2015/16 election which resulted in the Trump election.” The meaning of this sentence was ambiguous as written. I should have said that:
“Trump was the victor in the 2015/16 election. We have now learned Prigozhin field political action to affect that election. I wonder how much that might have affected the election results.” Putin no doubt had Prigozhin do this to distance himself from accusations of tampering with US elections. I wonder if Prigozhin was similarly engaged during the Brexit fight in the UK. Putin’s use of Prigozhin in Africa to gain gold, diamonds and other valuable minerals, has also enabled Putin to feign ignorance of these activities.
None of this should surprise anyone who takes the trouble to read Alexander Dugin’s book, Foundations of Geopolitics, 1997, which is also linked in comment #172. His writings are reported to be a strong influence on Putin’s world geographical view. I did not come up with the 20 bullet points describing how to conquer the world, Dugin did, and Putin has studied them. This book is read in RUssia’s war colleges, and it has even been proposed to require it in high schools.
If you don’t read the link then you are choosing to remain ignorant and every point you make will be an ignorant one and well worth ignoring. Anyone making comments here who is not aware of the content of Dugin’s book and thoughts is like a person who was unaware of Hitler’s Mein Kampf in 1938. Totally lacking in the information needed to understand or predict Hitler’s soon to be seen world moves, or to write intelligently about him or them.
Anyone who is actually interested in Dugin, rather than this cartoon caricature, should check out Auron MacIntyres interview series with Michael Millerman.
Millerman was one of the translators of Dugin’s “Fourth Political Theory”
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdn36Wooon2y27o1miFGTKfbS7bvhFSDw
Thanks for the reference by name. I did a search for the work, and so question your statement about "how to conquer the world...." If you have a source / citation to offer, it would be appreciated. Have you a copy of the work in English? If so, what publisher name?
Wiki reflects the old USSR strategy, as one learned through a variety of sources: one is "45 COMMUNIST GOALS FROM 58 YEARS AGO"
https://www.ethanallen.org/45_communist_goals_from_58_years_ago
The Wiki reads: "Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should 'introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics'."
In "Foundations of Geopolitics" -- Wiki
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
Of an English translation on Amazon, one Amazon reviewer states: "The English translation is so bad as to be unintelligible. Russian words are left in at random, more than 90% of all sentences are garbled - several sentences in the sample completely lack verbs. Much of this book is therefore sadly nonsense."
Source: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Foundations-Geopolitics-Geopolitical-English-Translation-ebook/dp/B087R1ZJBK
There seems to be an online machine-assist translation (not through Amazon and free on line) : https://agdugintranslate.gitbook.io/foundations-of-geopolitics/part-1-founding-founders-of-geopolitics/chapter-1-friedrich-ratzel.-states-as-spatial-organisms
From Part 4 one reads "On the other side of the liberalism of the 'reformers' and the Soviet-tsarism of the 'united opposition' there is an urgent need for a 'third way', for a special ideological project that would not be a compromise, not a 'centrism' between the two, but a completely radical innovative a futuristic plan breaking with the hopeless dualistic logic of 'either liberals or the opposition' where, as in a maze without a way out, the current Russian public consciousness rushes about."
Recalling that the text was from 1997, is states a different way from liberalism or what he called Soviet-tsarism is imagined.
Skimming the text, it is interesting to note he speaks to a "re-division of the world." Perhaps this is what suggests to you a "conquer the world" imagery. I suspect it more subtle and different.
In that, he writes: "Russians in the New Empire act simultaneously in two roles:
1) As one of the large nations that are political entities of the Federal Empire of the Nations,
2) As the initiator of continental integration into this Federated Empire of Nations."
Interesting too is his statement "During the historical formation of the final geographical picture of the West, the primacy from the island of England passed to the continent of America, especially to the United States. Thus, the USA and the NATO bloc controlled by them became the maximum embodiment of thalassocracy [ sea-based society or state ] in its strategic, ideological, economic, and cultural aspects."
"...Russia has two options, either the military occupation of Europe, or such a reorganization of the European space that will make this geopolitical sector a reliable strategic alliance of Moscow, preserving its sovereignty, autonomy and autarchy. The first option is so unrealistic that it should not be discussed seriously. The second option is complicated, but feasible, since half a century spent by Europe in the position of an American colony left a serious mark in European consciousness."Friendly Europe as a strategic ally of Russia can arise only if it is united. Otherwise, the Atlantic adversary will find many ways to bring crushing and schism into the European bloc, provoking a conflict similar to the two world wars."
He seems to speak of a "New Eurasian Order" which is not, therefore a "empire" with Moscow as a new tsar, but a federation of sorts, in which Russia as a nation plays a role. Sounds about the way the BRICS+ and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which the current Biden administration seems to be flummoxed by.
The last chapter is titled, "Chapter 6 - From sacred geography to geopolitics." It ends with "The planetary supra-racial and supranational Geopolitical Revolution, based on the fundamental solidarity of the Third World with that part of the Second World, which rejects rich north project. "
Source: https://agdugintranslate.gitbook.io/foundations-of-geopolitics/part-6-eurasian-analysis/chapter-6-from-sacred-geography-to-geopolitics
What seems likely is that a nation with some 145 million cannot provide troops to "occupy" all of Europe and its 700 million, or the EU zone with its 450 million, or even the entire current borders of Ukraine. The arithmetic is not with the Russian Federation, in that regard. Neither is it in the NATO's ability to 'return the favor.'
It seems that "conquer the world" is old imagery, while something akin to that "new Empire" which is not Russia as a single nation, but something like Bush's "new world order" and Biden's "new liberal order." A consortium of nations aligning in opposition to another consortium of nations seems to be the clearer picture. It is one I personally think the bumbling Blinken (and recently Yellen) are not dealing well with. That consortium seems to be larger than Russia alone, as the BRICS+ and SCO are evidencing.
Trump's stance seems rather clear in this, that we need to "deal" with all the nations of the world, rather than expend further our situation in which, as Victor Davis Hanson wrote, ""Is the United States economically capable or politically unified or socially stable enough to wage a huge proxy war on the frontiers of a nuclear Russia? During the last comparable multibillion-dollar military efforts — the First Gulf War in 1990-1991 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq — the ratio of American debt to GDP was respectively 40 and 50 percent. Today it hovers at nearly three times that figure at 129 percent, given some $33 trillion in accumulated debt."
Have your read the enitre text? I sped thrugh it, and conclude "conquier the world" is not the sense of it. Rather, play a hand in a different group of nations to oppose the current groupings of nations seems the clearer view. In which Russia, enormoaus in land mass byt tiny in population, cannot and seems not to want to "conquer the world." No more than do we. Or the EU.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.