It is 400,000 now. With a wounded ratio of 5:1. This means that 2.4 million Ukrainian military age men are now either dead or disabled. Furthermore, half of Ukraine supports Russia and 15 million have left as refugee prostitutes and cleaners to the EU. This leaves 2.6 million die-hard Nazis in State 404 who aren’t disabled, dead or the 20 million who welcomed their fellow Russians as liberators, but most of that 2.6 million are trannies or babies or geriatrics. Russia has won. There is no Ukraine, only Russia. Zelensky will be tried in Moscow for Zionist conspiracies later this year.

I think you need to understand a few points:

1. NATO is collapsing. The proof is that it has never been bigger, more internally cooperative nor more popular, but the truth is that the more successful something is the harder it falls

2. Neocons blew up the Nordstream 1, leaving Nordstream 2 functional so as to pin the blame on Russia, because the Ukrainian military was collapsing. We know this because Germany won’t dare accuse them. Jews dominate both the EU and German parliaments.

3. The Khinzal super weapon shows how useless the US is and how superior Russia is in technology. It completely the destroyed the Patriot system, which shoots down no missiles anyway, and this can be seen by the fact that Russia has not bothered with follow-up attacks, even on other military targets in Kiev.

4. Putin is playing geopolitics as 4D chess. This makes sense because Russia provided many of the best chess champions. Russia allies like Brazil continue to buy Russian hydrocarbons at half price while merely condemning their war.

5. India is now a China ally. This is why they are switching their military from Soviet/Russian equipment to Western equipment. They can then role-play enemy forces for the Chinese in joint exercises, such as those in the mountains where they beat each other. It will work much better with American equipment.

6. The US Dollar is collapsing. It is consistently higher than at almost any point since 2008 against the Chinese Yuan, but we know that 2008 was economically bad.

7. Russia is winning the war in Ukraine. They set off to DeNazifiy the country and there are now basically no Nazis there. Simple observation that you can’t refute.

8. Ron Unz never said that Russia would defeat the Ukrainian military, but of course they will. When they start trying. A lot of experts like Macgregor say this. And you can tell that people like him are the real deal because Russian patriotic personalities mock them for their Russia optimism. This mocking is a sign of verity and respect as Russian patriots can be depressive and make dark jokes.

It seems that you’re just some American patsy who’ll parrot any of the standard Washington Post talking points. Look at the 8 points above and realise that the obvious truth is right in front of you. I guess you must be new here. Stick around and get educated.

Looking back through your comment history, you appear to combine the belief that banning “Nazis” off Twitter is a gross authoritarian injustice and yet also invading Ukraine and killing potentially hundreds of thousands and levelling cities in order to attack “Nazis” is “worth it.

I’m not getting it. Do you think the West invaded Russia or was going to invade Russia?

You were alleging that Russia has been fighting as it has in order to cull the Ukrainian population, rather than take Kiev and end the war. Or whatever territory would allow them to do so. You argued this was necessary to stave off a future insurgency. Do you think the benefits to you and Russia make all of that death and destruction worth it? Because I still can’t identify any benefits.

I hardly think this ongoing invasion of Ukraine by Russia makes WW3 less likely, but perhaps you can explain why you think that is so?

I can’t find any evidence to support your allegations about Ukraine.

Public support for funding Ukraine is high. Certainly high enough to continue providing the modest current level of financial backing for many years yet, given that it is much higher than the majority of similar areas for spending and it enjoys bipartisan Congressional support too.

The intentional wiping out of large sections of a population fits most definitions of genocide.

The Ukrainian Donbas conflict, on the other hand, had very few total casualties prior to this invasion, therefore it does not. Unless you are trying to argue that the Ukrainians intended a genocide in the Donbas?

In the first year of the war, the US delivered $75 billion aid in total. That is less than 7.5% of the US security budget.

Is your theory of Russian military victory therefore based on relying on imminent US collapse as a country?

If that happens, do you think Eastern European countries will also abandon Ukraine?

However, if Ukraine is unable to subject Russia to a clear military defeat, the US will have no choice but to drop the sanctions and grant Russia recognition of its current territorial conquests. And the West will have to at least unofficially agree that Ukraine will not become part of NATO and that Ukraine will not be provided with long range weapons. Economic/political problems in the United States will keep the US from funding this conflict past another couple of years

Is this your theory of Russian victory?

I don’t understand the mechanism of how the US will be “forced”? Forced by what? At what cost if they do not comply?

The Ukrainians understate their losses for obvious reasons. If they repeat the lies often enough and loudly enough, people believe the lies even when they know better. Same as everywhere else. The main customers for the lies are the citizens in the countries whose politicians support Ukraine.

My impression is that the Ukrainians have loudly publicised their losses whenever they felt they needed more military support. This is the opposite of the dynamic you are suggesting.

I am saying the Russian military has enough foresight to be concerned about managing the complex situation in Ukraine after the combat phase of the SMO is complete. This concern may influence their combat tactics. That notion doesn’t seem too Earth shattering to me, but it is something one can think about.

And that this foresight is leading them to conduct an ongoing methodical genocide of Ukrainians.

What do you think makes this invasion worth that?

Ukrainians appear to be confident that they can outlast Russia in a war for Ukraine, though a successful summer offensive that ends in the decisive defeat of Russia’s military, either in the South or East of Ukraine, leading Russia’s humiliation, and the deposal of Putin, seems to be their theory of victory. Their intended result would be Ukraine being safe from Russian invasion forever and a potentially peaceful and equal relationship with their neighbour to the East. Outlasting Russia in Ukraine would only achieve the first part of this.

It strikes me that any belief or suggestion of yours is justified by you to you as merely an equal and opposite reaction to what you perceive as the malevolence of international news media entertainment.

This means that you therefore have a blank cheque to speculate or act as you wish because it is fair in this context. You did not start it. You are just defending yourself.

Is this a reasonable approximation?

Your purpose on this forum is to teach people how to think so that we might avoid WW3?

These types of surveys suffer from being unable to discern the strength of respondents’ beliefs and therefore how likely they will change their mind. A lot of people in developed countries vaguely think of Microsoft’s clippy and Indian call centres when they consider AI.

but Nato is a different story: it is now official that they can’t fight

What do you mean by “official”? It is not a widely held opinion.

Nato eastward march is stalled

You believe that NATO both does not want to fight and wanted to march eastward from Ukraine into Russia?

I am having a problem squaring these two.

They are fighting and dying for two things: so Nato can move to Ukraine and so the Russian minority is eliminated.Is that really something people should be dying for?

The Ukrainians, who are doing the fighting and dying, believe they are doing so in order to stop Russian domination of their country. What do you believe privileges you to know better their motivations than them? I don’t mean this dismissively, as it is normal in political discussions to assume groups’ motivations, but usually there is an explanation for why such insight is possessed.

I also looked back through your comments and saw that you were consistently bullish on Russian prospects. Had the war gone like you predicted, it would have been finished with a complete Russian victory many times over. Has the fact of Russia’s withdrawal from Kherson, as well as fighting in Bakhmut for 1 year, caused you to adjust your viewpoint and question your previous assumptions? If so/not, why so/not?

My impression of the media coverage was that it was uniformly mocking until Wagner appeared to be the only group within the Russian military able to achieve successes on the ground. Mocking doesn’t seem to be great PR, but I know little about PR and assume an “international Jewish conspiracy” would be the world’s repository of expertise on this subject.

Do you believe in an international Jewish conspiracy? And, if so, what are its common aims?

The sourcing in this article reminds me of the sourcing in many of the more strident Russiagate articles and even some of the Dominion reporting and QAnon stuff. All of it would be interesting if true, but turned out to be fantastical literary creations packaged for online entertainment.

If you discovered that much of your own media consumption turned out to be exactly this, consciously constructed in order to generate an audience and money, like any Hollywood movie, would you mind?

They also seem to be weakening NATO and the EU the longer this drags on.

All surveys say that support for the EU and NATO has strengthened greatly because of this war.

In what way do you think these institutions have been weakened?

This is just a guess on my part. No one here is mean enough to weigh in on this discussion. Just as well, it is dehumanizing. I don’t like it, but I think it could be what we are seeing.

You guess that Russia is currently conducting a methodical campaign to kill all Ukrainian men between 16-50, so as to extinguish any future guerrilla movements before they start?

Does the West have moral culpability for this too?

Will future Ukrainians, at least those that remain, also blame this on the West and not Russia? It’d be a historical first.

How does this square with the released Ukrainian figures of just 13,000 operational fatalities? Are they lying by a factor of 30? If so, who are they lying to? I don’t believe it could be to the Ukrainian people who, given the scale of the numbers suggested by Russia sympathetic sources, would absolutely know the truth?

It’s a common endeavor, nothing specific to noviops per se. The Russian people have been no more supportive of the war than elites, see (3)

This is an excellent observation. People who blame the elites for being out of touch for not supporting any particular political attitude are most often shown to be out of touch themselves, and the elites’ attitudes actually very much mainstream.

I wonder if “Ivashka” perhaps lives in a particularly isolated part of Russia and therefore has less understanding of how ordinary people think?

The obvious pathway there is massive electoral fraud in 2024 intersecting with economic stagnation and military defeat; individually, these are the three most common proximate causes of post-Soviet color revolutions, and there’s some chance Putin is going to gather the entire trifecta.

Do you believe that Putin will run for re-election in these circumstances?

In this scenario, my preference would be for Russia to go very gay and liberal in order to rapidly rehabilitate itself in the “international community” and to attract human capital. Perhaps that process can even be accelerated by an alliance with the Western partners against East European r*ghtoids made unduly intransigent by their otherwise entirely Pyrrhic victory, as I suggested to AP.

Attitudinal surveys suggest that the Russian people would be most comfortable folded into the “East European rightoid” sphere.

Ok, thank you.

As for your opinion of your opinion. Do you recognise that it is considered a marginal one? Do you understand that generally you will be seen as impermeable to truth or facts? What is it that makes you know these things, if indeed you’re right, better than everyone else?

It seems that you think an international conspiracy of Jews has made Prigozhin famous for their own ends instead of Igor Girkin. Did they appoint him head of the only part of Russia’s force that has advanced in months, while demoting Girkin to marginalised Russian-language podcaster?

That is a very passionate and epic account of Russia’s motivations.

Why do you think they are allocating so little GDP to the effort?

As far as I can research, it seems that the populace of the country that most supports Ukraine continuing to fight is Ukraine’s.

You believe that Britain had plans to build a base in Crimea in 2021?

You believe that Russian victory is achieved by Russia keeping control of Sebastopol?

Do you think Putin will be able to sell this to the Russian people after perhaps 2 or 3 years of fighting and so much death and destruction if this is all of internationally recognised Ukraine that he keeps control of? It is certainly a spot with historical significance.

Many reasonable people doubt that Russia has the ability to threaten Kherson again. In this context, I am trying to discover what anyone sympathetic to Russia considers to be a workable theory of victory for them.

Sincere. So what are the goals in your opinion?

Can you elaborate as if to a young child on what you believe those goals to be?

He directly states that Russia’s “slow progress” is “intentional.” In other words, that it is proceeding as planned.

He also adds that Russia’s chances of winning are 100%, except for a 1/5 chance that international powers conspire against Russia, I think. In others words, that the plan is working and is good.

I think Russia’s likelihood of full victory is about 80%. I think the slow progression is intentional. Mere survival is not a realistic option for Russia. Anything less than a decisive Russian victory will embolden the West to pursue future similar projects against Russia. My 20% chance for other outcomes has nothing to do with military capabilities, this would be the result of some background dealing by the powers that be.

I don’t understand how the various threads in your reply tie together. We were discussing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and you seemed to be arguing that it was going exactly as planned for Russia and that also Russia did not choose it, which I found an interesting position. Here you seem to have made a couple of grievances that you have against the West and combined them with threats of WW3.

Are you arguing that NATO allowing in countries that applied to join it and leaving the ABM treaty is why Russia had no choice but to invade Ukraine and enact this “just as planned” operation, complete with all of the deaths, destruction and withdrawals?

You believe that the CIA are controlling the only part of the Russian military that had success during what was supposed to be their war winning Winter offensive?

Do you also believe that the Russian Federation is a globalist/CIA/MI6 project?

I think I understand your perspective.

You believe “historians” will explain to future Ukrainians that it was Ukrainians who actually started the war and Ukrainians did so because the West was using them to perpetrate some injustice on Russia, which is of course innocent of all actions and is actually engaging in altruism by sending its forces into Ukraine.

You also believe that Russia has intentionally failed to take Bakhmut in a year of fighting, as well as to surrender Kherson just after declaring it part of Russia, and generally extend this war for as long as possible, in order to achieve certain effects, and that Russia could win this war whenever it wanted.

This viewpoint is interesting. It combines allocating all moral culpability to the West even while allocating all actual decision-making power to Russia. I consider it an outlier on the side of Russia sympathy. Do you consider it that way, or do you self-identify as a moderate who sees others as much more partisan for Russian than you? Keep in mind that I am not based in Russia and am therefore not exposed to every possible opinion and that my idea of a middle ground can only be based on the range of views which I have encountered.

The tragedy for Russia will be the loss of half a million to a million Slavic sons on both sides of the imaginary line. I doubt they will ever forgive the West.

Are you arguing that the West and not Russia will be held responsible for the war deaths by Ukrainians?

That seems extremely unlikely. I don’t even read any serious Russian sources trying to hold the West responsible for Russian war deaths.

You also seem to be implying that success for Russia in this war is achieved by merely surviving. That is interesting and leads me to conclude that by your measure Russian success is 95% certain.

I don’t believe my supervisor will accept a change of topic from opinion-forming and the Russia-Ukraine war to YouTube Halloween actor who wraps his cheap merch in infantile understanding of the occult.

A lot of mainstream commenters sympathetic to Ukraine believed that Putin would not survive this long into a war that played out like this. Yet he is still firmly in power.

Are there any here who thought he would be gone by now who have since had to revise their opinion?

If so, how do you explain it?

Meanwhile, Russia sympathetic commenters appear to believe that his hold on power was extremely firm and have been proven correct. Or do any disagree?

I’ve looked back through your comments and you appear to have been predicting an easy Russian victory back in Feb 2022. In particular, I found your extreme self-confidence very striking.

Do you still have this opinion? And if so/not, why so/not?

Reading Russian mil Twitter today, many personalities are hyping the idea that the Russian Khinzal missile destroyed the US donated Patriot missile system.

But this is an impossible claim as the Patriot missile system consists of many launchers, spread over a wide area and the main part of the device would not be in the open.

This leads me to doubt their entire message since they either lack even starter level knowledge about what they are talking or they are actively lying in easily disprovable ways.

Does anyone here have any particular personalities to vouch for? Maybe one who still supports the Russian side and has a track record of competence? Anatoly Karlin is instead now arguing that Russia should essentially beg for peace now and could then keep Crimea, but this is the best deal they will ever get. A result that everyone would see as an unimaginable loss for Russia at the beginning of the war and their consignment to moderate regional power status. I cannot believe it.

The recent Mestizo shooter with the Nazi tattoos summed up the problem of WN movements in his own words when he wrote “of course I love the Nazis, I love all evil things.”

WN as a designated “evil” movement ends up attracting many people who are drawn to anything designated evil, which then reinforces its evil image.

The solution is twofold: to ruthlessly shun these types and to present as relentlessly kind, compassionate and otherwise positive.

There is no crime in having supported the Bolsheviks in their rise to power. The ideology they proposed promised mostly good things. The previous regime was broken and exhausted. Only with hindsight can we damn the hopeful revolutionaries. A gift they did not have.

These discussions remind me of a friend who felt guilty for her Germanic ancestors having been photographed proudly holding a Swastika in 1930s Southern Brazil. There was nothing for her to feel bad about. Not just because she is not them, but also because they did not know what would happen. They were likely isolated former Pomeranians who had heard of a revitalisation movement among their distant ethnic kin and innocently dressed up to show their support.

Being a distant Nazi in 1930s Brazil and being a Bolshevik in the revolutionary period is not the same as being one while they were secure in power and enacting horrors, such as under Stalin, nor being one in the glare of our information age in which the products of those movements can be seen with a monstrous clarity.

This is easier to understand if we depoliticise the topic. Who judges pre-modern doctors for recommending that their patients smoke tobacco for their health?

Hello all,

I am writing a university thesis on armchair support for the antagonists in the Russian-Ukraine war.

In particular, I am looking at appraisals of how the war is going and how those predictions changed over time.

I now need case-studies of individuals to make this research compelling. The specific details include what each individual wanted at the beginning of the war, what they thought would happen and how they have revised these conceptualisations since in ongoing processes and related to events.

Given that many of the commentors here have unalterable records stretching back many years, but also that I don’t want to spend tens of hours going through them, can any individuals give an account of their own journeys on this subject?

I would value mea culpas, opinion reversals and those who are willing to point out how the facts have changed their more general worldview most.

Many thanks,

M

This article is a bizarre Jewish supremacist fantasy. Jews are described as every type of overman. Non-Jews are described as less than NPCs, barely plankton.

Unz.com is Unz’s ego unleashed and his lunatic anti-Semitic followers worshipping him. And just as you sacrifice a child/do evil to worship the devil. So too do Unz’s followers engage in mad projecting hatred to worship him.

Hilariously, the only practical advice Unz ever offers his plankton followers is that they act like “berserkers” or lunatics, which will totally discredit whatever causes that might be salvaged from their insanity.

That and the genuine kindness of suggesting these deranged old loons get vaccinated, as Unz isn’t actually the devil that craves worship, but a lonely LARPing fool who wishes he had maintained his friendships, rather than sacrificing them for pretend ones (“famous academic”), exaggerated memories of the dead (Odom) and suchnl luminaries as Metallicman (psychic powers from metal in head), Raches (would be more sensible with metal in his head) and all manner of other nutcases.

The world is sort of unfair Ron. I have no doubt you’ve been a genuine and wonderful friend to everyone you’ve been close to, but most people need more than that, they need to be needed. This is so that they can feel secure, rather than being crushed in the inequality of your self-contained superiority. Sailer is an exception. Everyone else will let you go, unless psychoapthic grifters taking advantage of you. And they’ll do it because you push them away, by never asking anything vulnerable or personal.

And this ugly and stupid politics arc you’ve been on for a decade or so doesn’t help. It ups the cost of knowing you, and since you don’t “need” their friendship, they won’t maintain it. No harm no foul.

Admit to yourself that you want to be a martyr and admit to yourself that you have self-victimised and transcend this nonsense. Writing long articles where you think you’re denouncing the Jews, while lauding them in the most extreme ways, and think you’re defending the others, while portraying them as useless, is pathological. You’re not a prophet or a Satan or Voldemort or whatever. You’re just a lonely old man. Show yourself some compassion on that and open up a bit. You’ll feel much better, and that’s the least you deserve from yourself.

He’s referring to the schizophrenic source of Ron Unz’s “the US attacked China with COVID” fantasy. Metalicmann obviously knows this because of the metal those same neocon biowarfarists put in his head to give him psychic powers, hence his name. If only the media would report this, then everyone would agree and finally realise that Ron Unz really does have a 210 IQ and no major personality disorder.

he claims that he was fitted with a metal head-insert by the U.S. military that gives him ESP powers

Your strongest soldier.

Rote learning of openings etc will do it for anyone average. It is boring as it takes the magic out of the game, but it really is all that is needed to play at that level. A lot of really intelligent people who played chess when young don’t know this, of course, as they didn’t spend 2-3 months learning this stuff, but, had they, they would be much better players than 1500.

Your description and my description do not contradict at their core. You have to be brilliant to get higher than that score without learning openings and/or without rote learning of moves etc (I was!), but any average player with a small amount of conscientiousness can score that highly, and higher, if they do the boring stuff first.

including a win against the former national champion Gloria Jumba (rated 1487),

This is a very low rating. It describes an average player who knows the rules and doesn’t make trash mistakes. I’m glad that AI is being created. The future doesn’t seem like it will have a lot of surplus biological computing power.

Isn’t the war being widely described as a WWI-style war of attrition? In that sort of war, weren’t the overwhelming majority of casualties inflicted by artillery?

50% of casualties were likely from shelling.

But often because of poorly built defensive position and/or assaults on open ground.

Also, antibiotics will have greatly reduced the lethality of indirect fires.

Finally, Russia has fired as many shells in a month as major WW1 participants did in a day.

If Ukraine had lost troops at the same rate as the British in WW1, given their force size and time of the war, they would have lost 30,000. 17,500 is therefore reasonable.

The idea that Ukraine has lost 300,000 dead or something like that is ludicrous. No serious professional could genuinely believe it. Trying to argue that is like trying to argue for having invented cold fusion in your garage with a famous physicist.

Meanwhile, Russia has lost a lot of troops because of catastrophic and hubristic attempts at advances and assaults that went so badly they are now having to do mobilising waves, conducted via ever more novel means, despite having started the war with 1.5 million in their military.

the Ukrainians were said to have lost no more than 17.5K KIAs. Isn’t that figure just as impossibly low?

That figure is likely accurate for when that document was written a couple of months ago, 1 year into the war.

12.5% of British serving in WW1 died in over 4 years.

That would give Ukraine 30,000 deaths in their million man force.

But medical technology has massively improved since, radically shifting the casualty to fatality ratio, and the Ukrainians are fighting far more conservatively than the British were.

17,500 is therefore reasonable.

It also accords with the facts on the ground.

Injured, including minor injuries etc, may be as much as 10 times that.

What’s most ironic is that when the catastrophe that is Putin’s war finally becomes clear in your low IQ “populist” insane paranoiac followers’ heads, they’ll turn on you and blame the Jews, and you, for the war in order to run away from the shame and guilt associated with cheerleading this monstrous endeavour and doing so in a state of such obvious delusion.

This is precisely what these people did with the post-9/11 wars, where conservative populists, with a few admirable exceptions, demanded the war of the WASP Jewish coastal and progressive elites, who basically obliged out of misguided respect, but clearly opposed it in their own opinions.

The Jews themselves were particularly likely to stick their heads out to defend this dysfunctional rabble because by not being familiar with them, they lionised them. Same with communism. Meanwhile, the gentile elites had much less sympathy for the political opinions of the deranged idiots of their own ethnicity, because they were familiar.

Just because stupid black people are even stupider doesn’t mean that stupid white people are to be supported in direction setting. And just because elites haven’t yet fully realised how stupid the stupid black people are, it doesn’t excuse you being unable to realise this for your followers. There is no there there. And it is making you look ridiculous. I don’t think there’s one statement you any longer make as regards this war and the consequences that isn’t basically retarded. Lie down with morons and you will only speak moron.

Do you ever express gratitude for the fact that your level of treachery would see you swiftly disappeared in Russia or China, but, in the United States, you are allowed to continue your life of immense material wealth, privilege and security?

Truly the inheritor to those Jews Joseph R. McCarthy went for.

Obviously the extreme tolerance shown to you is a perfect example of why the United States is great and why your deluded views on China and Russia will continue to be proven wrong, but gratitude is a feeling and I wonder whether you can acknowledge it?

This also isn’t to say that you’re insincere in your views. You’re painfully sincere, but read your writer Giraldi’s latest on his trip to Eastern Europe and ask yourself what bubble of propaganda had your supposed expert lived in where he somehow hadn’t realised that Eastern Europe is totally in the tank for the defence of Ukraine? I mean, congratulations to him on being able to change his mind, but that is what being told you are a “complete c*nt” by every former friend will do to anyone, surely?

Also, I can guarantee you that this piece of yours as regards the Economist won’t be received as you think it will. The feeling among any and every journalist will be straightforward, “who is this insufferable, deranged and pathetic maniac who seeks to center himself into life that clearly ignores him?”

What about Chelyabinsk? Also, why is a Doctor’s salary “no longer enough to live off?”

More than one person can notice that you write like a neurotic old dear.

I don’t doubt that due to corruption the gangsters of the 90s and their children take much more than anyone else (and this is offensive and unfair, of course). But enough had been spread around to improve the general quality of life, beyond Soviet times.

I think a reasonable defense of Russia’s poor indicators, prior to the 2022 invasion, is that yes, Russia has all these poor indicators compared to the West, and the richer Eastern European countries, but the country has been slowly improving, and is still recovering from the 1990’s collapse. Now, Russia’s economy was stagnant, which was really bad news, given that Russia was supposed to be catching-up, but even so, one could argue Russia was improving.

Now, though, it’s hard to argue that things are improving. Homicide is on the rise again, and one can only imagine what will happen to all those guns and loose criminals. The Russian government is cutting health, education and infrastructure budgets, the exact opposite of what needed to be done, economic growth got even worse, and so on.

To be clear, Ukraine never came out of the 1990s collapse, or was just starting to when Russia invaded, and Belarus has its serious problems too. All three East Slavic countries, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, seem to suffer from a serious coordination problem. Most of the Third World have a human capital problem, so basically their populations are too dumb to build and sustain developed societies. East Slavs have high human capital, and not just potential human capital like Bosnia, where the population does poorly nowadays on academic scores, but potentially could do much better because Bosniaks were identical to Croats and very similar to Slovenes genetically, but really already measurable high human capital, ready for use. All East Slavic countries waste their human capital due to terrible institutions and poor coordination, and perhaps the Russian invasion has to be seen from that angle as well.

So because some of your own people do these terrible things, you propose that Russia be free to do its own terrible things to other peoples. To Eastern Europeans who, unlike your own people, have not collectively soiled themselves in the way that you describe. When the West whom you despise (despite being a Westerner) on a rare occasion finally does something right (gives weapons to a conservative church-going European people who are fighting to keep Islamic Chechens serving their Eurasian master out of their lands) – you oppose it.

Lukashenko literally imported a bunch of immigrants and tried to start a migrant crisis on the border with Poland and Lithuania. No US president has done that with East Europe or West Europe. No Americans forced Merkel to invite one or two million Muslims to Germany.

It is true that the ideology being promoted by American elites is a poison, but it is worth asking why one would oppose such an ideology. Let’s take the example of Sweden. Why should one oppose mass migration from the Third World to Sweden? Why should one be outraged by what Swedish elites have done to their country? Well, there are several reasons, the main one being the idea that ethnic Swedes should have a homogeneous homeland where they can express their culture and identity without hindrance from others, another more pragmatic, but perhaps even more revolting in everyday life, is that these third world immigrants cause an immense amount of crime, much of it against Swedish natives, and another is just the idea that forcing different populations to live together when they didn’t have to, is just inviting ethnic strife and future civil conflict, and all so unnecessarily.

So, ok, those being the reasons why one would oppose mass third world immigration to Sweden, or anywhere else, why on earth would one support Russia doing these things against Ukraine? One wouldn’t, if he wants to be consistent. One would, if he wishes to be a contrarian.

The other thing is that I sometimes wonder why some Westerners who hate the West stay in their countries. There are plenty of supposedly based and trad places in the Third World they can move to if they really hate their people now.

Ok. If Russia responds by nuking Ramstein air base and other NATO facilities in Europe, what is the US going to do then?
Ever thought about how such an escalationary spiral is likely to end?

Russia will not do this because they are not suicidal. As I said, it’s absurd to assume that Russia’s elite have nothing to lose when they have their lives, their very nice lives, and also their giant country.

It’s not just Putin, it’s abundantly clear that the majority of Russians regards Crimea as Russian territory.
But yes, of course Putin might make it clear that the loss of Crimea won’t be tolerated. With a nuclear ultimatum. And if he does act on that ultimatum, see the part above.

Thinking rationally, and despite the mistakes I think Putin is rational, the first step will be to talk to Ukrainians and the West in no ambiguous terms about nukes being used to protect Crimea. Until now, nuclear threats have been purposely ambiguous, and much goes back and forth. If Putin and Russia’s elite decide that nukes are going to be used to protect Crimea, they’ll communicate that with words first, and then if they need to throw a nuke, obviously they’ll throw it in Ukraine, in a mostly deserted place, to prove the point.

Because NATO countries have already invested immense material support and prestige into Ukraine (see sunk cost fallacy), and because a non-trivial part of Western elites, based on the rhetoric they’re spouting, seems to believe that nothing but a clear Russian defeat could ever be acceptable.

All victory talk is about Ukraine winning a victory with its military and with help from the West. Nobody talks about sending their military to Ukraine, nobody of any importance anyway. Regarding investment in Ukraine, yes, there has been a lot of investment by the West, but in the form of small portions of GDP, nothing that will cause the West to send its own soldiers to die, this is frankly absurd.

As I said, Macron and Scholz on multiple occasions seemed to want to offer Russia their own grandmother’s house. Only recently did they stop talking about how Russia is scary, how Russian feelings are important, and how Ukraine has to give everything away, and it never made sense to speak publicly like that. In the US, you have Republicans increasingly wanting to stab Ukraine in the back. Ukraine is in far greater danger of losing Western support than it is of gaining Western support in the form of direct military intervention, the latter not going to happen.

That part at least is true – so far.

We can only see what is happening in reality, although we can assume that Russia has probably lost the ability to do much more than fight brutal battles in specific locations in Eastern Ukraine.

And yet despite all of these objective facts, the official Ukrainian position is that they’re going to restore Ukraine in its 2013 borders by militarily defeating Russia.

And before the official Ukrainian position was different. Why is this? Just think about it, does it make sense for the Ukrainian government to give things up before serious negotiations start?

Which is only conceivable if NATO enters the conflict directly, and as many occasions have shown (e.g. the incident with the Ukrainian missile hitting Poland) that’s something a part at least of the Ukrainian government would like to bring about.

So they won’t take Crimea, and I have no idea why you’re worried. NATO will not intervene, so any outcome depending on NATO intervention will not occur. Ukraine will win or lose based on the strength of its military plus Western aid.

Anyway, I realize I must sound very negative. I don’t even want to argue that all Western support for Ukraine should be ended, as I wrote above I don’t think that’s possible, nor would it be moral. Nor do I have a clear idea myself what has to be done, at this point there simply are no good options anymore. But I simply can’t accept this complacency which is so common among pro-Ukrainians that everything is going fine and this isn’t in fact an extremely dangerous crisis where one should be very cautious given the stakes involved. imo that’s absolutely insane.

Let me help you put your mind at ease. You are wrong about Western elites, they are extremely cautious and much more concerned with domestic issues, for obvious reasons, so they are not going to send their military into Ukraine to fight Russia, as they themselves have said multiple times.

Also, I don’t know what you think is gained by panicking about things that have yet to happen, and are unlikely to happen, especially if you are in favor of helping Ukraine. I understand that some people want Ukraine to lose, and there are many reasons why, some are anti-Western or self-hating Westerners, or for some it’s because they wrote an article about how powerful Russia was or how idiotic the foreign policy establishment was, and now they are afraid of being proven wrong.

I think a Russian victory parade in Kyiv is indeed unlikely, but I don’t see why it should be totally impossible for Russia to bleed out Ukraine’s armed forces through attritional warfare, until Ukraine has to sue for peace terms and accept the loss of territory occupied by Russia. And then what? Direct NATO intervention?

No, then Ukraine loses this territory. Why do you think NATO would interfere? NATO has said several times that they will not directly interfere, the only exception to this being Russia’s use of nukes. If Ukraine cannot displace Russia from the currently occupied territory, then that territory will be given to Russia in an agreement, formally, or de facto.

I honestly don’t know why you are confused about this. Nobody told the Ukrainians that they would send their military to help Ukraine if needed. Macron and Scholz wanted to give their grandmother’s house to Russia. There are US government sources every other month speaking anonymously to newspapers that Ukrainians have to hurry because US aid is not eternal.

Poland wanted to send a NATO military to protect Western Ukraine, for the obvious reason that they really didn’t want to win a new border with Russia, which as I said, would be a powder keg, but that’s not a danger anymore.

There are no good options at this point, people who think this proxy war is going just fine and not a huge risky gamble are just kidding themselves.

Russia is the one who decided to invade Ukraine. At that point there were no more ideal scenarios, but realistically, we went from the scenario where Poland and Russia share an explosive border on what used to be the Poland-Ukraine border, to a scenario where Russia is using almost all of its resources to take over a small town in the Donbas. We went from the scenario where Odessa is in danger and Russia is planning to connect Russian Odessa with Transnistria in Moldova, to Russia
losing Kherson and building defenses on the Left-bank of the Dnieper river. This war has been extremely contained.

Well, yes, Ukraine’s officially stated position at least is that they’ll end the war by conquering Crimea and restore Ukraine to its 2013 borders.
It’s also obvious that Ukraine has an interest in drawing NATO directly into the conflict. Both scenarios could easily bring about catastrophe.

After the invasion and for months after the Russians retreated from Ukraine’s capital, the public line of the Ukrainian government is that they were willing to negotiate a peace after Russia retreated to pre-February lines. Russia didn’t want to do that. Now, are the Ukrainians saying something different now because they now think they are capable of taking Crimea at an acceptable cost or because they are negotiating? I don’t know, and yes, ideally the Ukrainians wanted help, but they know that they are not going to get help in the form of soldiers, but only materiel.

Ukrainians know that Russia has four times their population, they know that having some version of this war going on indefinitely will kill their economy, they know all that, so I wouldn’t worry about them not taking these things into account.

As the AP says, Putin is perfectly safe from the West attacking Russia proper and Moscow. There is exactly zero risk of an army invading Moscow and putting Russia’s elite in prison. No one is proposing it, no one plans to do it, and no one could probably do it with all the nukes falling on them. The only way Putin appears in the Hague is if Putin’s friends decide to get rid of him and give him away, in which case Putin’s problem becomes exclusively a personal one.

The US and NATO have said it multiple times, and maybe they shouldn’t have said it before the war, but either way, they have said and continue to say that there will be no direct US/NATO intervention while the war continues in traditional fashion, meaning without nukes. If Russia uses nukes, then the US cannot tolerate the precedent and will directly intervene to destroy the Russian military. Even in this scenario however, the US is not going to invade Moscow and get Putin and friends. In that scenario the US will likely destroy the Russian military inside Ukraine, and perhaps in Syria and Moldova.

Regarding Crimea, I don’t disagree that there are risks there, but there’s no reason to panic now, long before anything happens there. If Putin sees Crimea no differently than Moscow, then I think that will be made clear to the Ukrainians and to the West.

Regarding Putin’s regime survival and his personal survival, it’s worth noting that Putin has already passed laws prohibiting former Russian presidents from being prosecuted, and he protected Yeltsin, so he knows he can choose a successor to protect him. The other thing is that Russia’s media and elite are so tamed that anything with perhaps the exception of the Crimean loss can be sold as a victory.

Russia does not have the ability to conquer Ukraine if Ukraine continues to receive anything close to current levels of aid, and as for Crimea, who knows, but nobody is more interested in the conflict ending than the Ukrainians, that should be obvious. Ukrainians don’t want this to take forever, they are the most interested party to see that such a thing doesn’t happen.

If Russia had conquered Ukraine, a war between Russia and NATO would be much more likely, for the simple fact that the new border between Poland and Russia would be a powder keg. Even in that scenario though, nukes would not be used, Russia would just be defeated by NATO and go home, because they would still have a home to go to.

Russian elites are not suicidal, they like the material world. Yes, they would prefer their imperialism to succeed, but failing that, they still have a country, and they are not going to risk it, along with their lives and that of everyone they care about.

It will last as long as the war lasts. Russia’s elites aren’t going to commit suicide, so they’re going to take defeat, if it turns out to be defeat, and just go home. The idea that Putin and friends have nothing to lose is absurd, they have their lives and a huge country to lose.

You also have to consider that a war between Russia and NATO would be much more likely in the alternative scenario where Russia had conquered Ukraine. I don’t think such a war would be nuclear either, but if that’s your concern then helping Ukraine lessens the chances of that.

When they finish failing to take Bakhmut and building defences in Belgorod, they’ll surely be swanning into Berlin.

Supporting Putinism ends the electoral prospects of yet another Western RW party:

The reason I even brought it up is because some of these Western Putinists argue that Russia should invade her neighbors, and especially subsume Ukraine, because that will somehow bring about a more traditionalist, conservative society in all these places that will be some kind of a counterweight to “Woke”. But of course this is not true. The Russians can’t solve basic problems, how would they solve those in occupied territories. It would be the exact opposite – ruins and depopulation (not to mention killing of innocents). But that’s not what these Putin fans care about, to them this is more like a sport with two competing teams (West vs Russia/China/Iran).

These pro-Russia invasion arguments are completely incoherent and nonsensical. Russia has much worse social indicators than countries like France and the UK, to say nothing of other countries like Denmark, Switzerland and Poland. Russia’s corrupt and incompetent institutions underutilize the human capital of its population. Russia also has the problem of high fertility alien minorities and mass migration of non-Europeans.

If Putin wanted to show the woke West, and improve the lives of his people, he would have fixed these problems, and created a prosperous, stable, advanced conservative and racially homogeneous country. This would have a much more significant effect on Western politics than a blundered invasion. But because he didn’t think he was competent enough for any of that, he decided that capturing Ukraine via force rather than via example was the way to go, so he launched a war which resulted in killing a bunch of Slavs and undermining East Slavia. Cheering for this is sheer nonsense if you’re supposed to be pro-European.

Lol. Imagine seeing the Russians taking a beating from the Ukrainians and thinking that Russia is going to invade the Baltics when the Baltics have the US military guarantee. These pro-Putin Westerners live in a fantasy, and the funny thing is that if you read real Russian nationalists, like Karlin, and also Russian military or ex-military people who are critical of their government, you will see a vastly more realistic assessment. They openly talk about how the Russian government was completely incompetent in being unable to win against a much smaller and much poorer country, and they still think the Russian government is being incompetent.

Having said all that, Russia isn’t going to disappear either, so they’re going to rebuild their military, and if you’re neighboring Russia, you have to assume they’re going to learn a few things from this war. Combine this with the fact that the US military guarantee cannot be assumed for the future, because anti-NATO isolationists are gaining power in the US, and the US will also want to focus more on China. The result is that Eastern Europe will have to create its own capacity to deter and if necessary defeat Russia. It’s not going to be the Baltics alone, because they’re too small, so it’s going to have to be a joint effort, with Poland and Ukraine leading the way. Fortunately for the Baltics and others in the vicinity, the Poles understand this, so they are already making the necessary investments to create a huge military and a very sophisticated military industry.

Hopefully not. We will see. Regarding human trafficking, I don’t know why you think Russia would help at all. Human trafficking was much worse in East Ukraine than West Ukraine, along with all sorts of social indicators. Donbas demographics in particular make the rest of Ukraine look like Israel in comparison.

The Ukrainian regime/proxy army has as its chief benefactor the GloboHomo Anglo Zionist empire and has a cross dressing degenerate [Zelensky] as its President.
Yet the Shadowless Vampire is calling the defender of family values [Russia] gay ?

Ohhhhhh the irony of it all.

Yes, reality is an ironic joke played on your dysfunctional brain.

The Russian Armed Forces, in a land conflict, are BY FAR the most powerful military in the world.

More than a year and can’t take minor settlements on the line at which they began the conflict. Forced into a humiliating surrender of “Russian territory” and major city of Kherson, as well as routed outside Kyiv, Sumy, Kharkhiv and then further parts of Kharkhiv.

All by Ukraine. A state that didn’t have a military 8 years ago and which Russia had infiltrated with agents of influence for centuries.

What a joke. RusFed is fake and gay and so is anyone who supports it.

The more I interact with you lunatics, the less I am bothered by the incredibly easy to dodge laws that you think you’re oppressed by. What sympathy am I meant to have for a bunch of idiots who confuse their sociopathy and paranoia for actual thinking? That doesn’t mean you don’t deserve love and compassion. You do. But please try to grow up.

Lol

You think the Norwegian diplomat “Ingrid Schulerud” is Jewish?

Her and Stoltenberg might be the two least Jewish people in Europe. They even met at the Oslo Cathedral School.

You’re a clown.

The “I spend all of my time advocating for an extreme form of ethnic nepotism for myself, while also claiming that I’m innately too pure and innocent for even minor corruption in this way” is the online RW equivalent of black people claiming to be ultra-peaceful and threatening to bomb, murder and rape anyway who doesn’t enthusiastically agree.

Karlin wrote an article about Georgian criminality: https://www.unz.com/akarlin/how-russian-is-the-russian-mafia/

Basically, although Georgia itself doesn’t seem to have a high homicide rate, Georgians are vastly overrepresented in the so-called Russia mafia, in fact they are the majority of it.

You got the date wrong and your speculations are off the wall as usual, but here:

https://www.reuters.com/markets/rates-bonds/ukraines-central-bank-devalues-hryvnia-by-25-against-us-dollar-2022-07-21/

The currency has been fixed for a long time. Ukraine chose to devlaue on that date as a serious tax to wealth in their country to better prosecute the war.

Jealousy is not really wanting something for yourself. It is wanting it for no one, because deep down you are sure even you don’t deserve it, and so everyone else must suffer too.

Learning from your mistakes is a virtue. Not to be criticised.

They were certainly more assimilable, and importantly, in numbers small enough not to significantly change the genetic makeup of the majority of the population in Russia, but also, Armenians probably had a high IQ, before they experienced high levels of brain drain at least, while Central Asians seem to be extremely dull.

One thing to concede to Putin though, is that his idea of absorbing Ukraine and Belarus is consistent with Human Biodiversity. Ukrainians and Belarusians are genetically similar to Russians, or similar enough that one might not consider them aliens, they are similar enough in culture, and they have high human capital, at least as high as Russians probably. So the plan made perfect sense on paper, because if you want to increase your population, doing so with high human capital populations with similar genetics and cultures is the right way to go.

On the other hand, Putin doesn’t seem concerned about closing the border with Central Asia, and because the plan to absorb Ukraine failed, now Russia is in danger of running out of the Slavs it wanted to absorb, but gaining all of Central Asia and who knows, maybe even other Third World peoples in the future, now that Putin has changed his foreign policy to appeal to the Third World even more.

I don’t think the traditional gender outlook is the issue here. Almost every urbanized country with medium to high incomes in the world has a fertility rate below replacement rate. The only exception that comes to mind is Israel. This is true for Asian countries, including China. This is true in Catholic Europe. In fact, countries like Denmark have higher fertility than developed Asia and Catholic Europe.

In the case of Russia, the vast majority of women have a child, but they stop at just one or maybe two. The lack of more large families is a difficult problem that no one has figured out how to fix, apart from having what Israel has, which is a mix of existential ethnic competition and highly religious groups.

About war, funnily enough, I think there is a pattern of war having the effect of increasing the status of women, at least in European countries. Why? Perhaps because war efforts bring people together and lessen previous social differences. In any case, it will be interesting to see if Ukraine experiences a baby boom after the war. If they don’t experience that, then they’re going to have a serious demographic deficit.