I'm hesitant to underestimate Macron and Starmer's stupidity, but the best time for a direct NATO conflict was March 2022, when the Russian military was still strung out in Northern Ukraine and the "arsenal of democracy" was undepleted. If NATO wasn't willing to pull the trigger and risk nuclear war then, they're not now. Especially since the circumstances have since grown much more disadvantageous.
Not sure that's true. Since 2022 Ukraine destroyed the best of the Russian conventional (non-nuclear) military by using the surplus / obsolete arms NATO countries were going to scrap. No NATO country depleted any equipment they would have sent their own people into war with.
If you think the average American unit, let alone a NATO unit, is better equipped than the average Ukrainian unit then I got some really bad news for you lol.
Russia's military and MIC is larger, not smaller, than in 2022. Even surface-level knowledge of military history would tell you that nation states' military capabilities grow, not shrink, as a war continues.
Putin would be an absolute moron if he do not storm the Suwałki Gap in the next 4-8 years based on what happened in Ukraine such a limited special military operation would cost nothing and would give him everything
Putin came to Washington for diplomacy. Instead, he was told whatever happened to Ukraine was none of his business. Just look how Ukraine juts into Russia. What a stupid comment, but the West clearly wanted to goad Putin into war, defeat him, and then the Western companies could buy up Russian companies for pennies on the dollar. The West clearly instigated this war back when they started moving NATO eastward, violating their solemn vow to Gobrachev never to do so. The West lies all the time and no one in the Western media calls them out on it.
Ukrainian internal affairs are none of Putin's (nor anybody else's) business.
It's a simple as that.
'The West' also never 'instigated this war' by 'moving eastwards': sovereign countries have the right to join alliances of their choice, no matter who else might have something against that.
It doesn't matter whether Ukraine is 'jutting into Russia' or whatever. And if it does matter to Pudding, and he 'does not want war', he could've negotiated about that. Matter of fact is: he didn't. Instead, he opted for war - and then in Ukraine - and for two invasions.
(Ironically, characters like you do not complain about Sweden and Finland joining NATO, thus 'expanding' the alliance 'in eastern direction' - nor demand Russia to invade them. How comes?)
Pudding's intention was always imperialistic by nature: he 'must' go down in history of 'creator of Novorossia', and 'grand strategist that confronted NATO'... and, of course, safeguard his own regime. Because he always knew: a democratic, pluralist, and flourishing Ukraine was foremost dangerous for his own position.
Finally: nobody ever promised anything of that kind to Gorbachev. At most, there was never any kind of talk about NATO's expansion further east, because the talking-heads negotiating at the time, simply didn't come to the idea to think what might happen 10, 20, 30 years after the German re-union. This might be an unpleasant truth - foremost for the talking-heads in question, all of which are eager to 'secure their place in history' - but is a simple matter of fact. Just like modern-day politicians, they were too busy with 'dividents for the next quartal', but to come to the idea to think beyond that point.
Nope. You're getting nothing at all - except for the usual BS spread by Putin's PRBS-industrialists.
The West is lying, yes, all the time, but in regards of other things. For example, in regards of its 'support' for Ukraine: sweetalking and some bucks, but nothing more.
On the contrary, and to offer examples where the West is not lying: 'Maidan' was no 'CIA conspiracy', but Ukrainians raising against Putin's dictate; just like the uprising in Libya against Q was no 'CIA conspiracy', but, guess what: Libyans raising against a murderous dictator terrorising them for 40 years.
For people like oyu, that's 'unimaginable': therefore, it must be a 'CIA conspiracy'...
Re. how democratic the West is: depends on the country and period in question. The USA used to be 'very democratic'; since Pullizer ruined the authoritativeness of the original US press, back in the early 20th Century, or at least since Kennedy and/or Nixon, they're descending in a free fall, though.
Doesn't mean that everything happens because some dictator there issued an order - like this is the case in the USA under Dumpf, or in such lovely countries like Russia, North Korea, Iran etc.
And... oh my: keep your BS about me wanting a war to the last Ukrainian. Just fuck off with that. Banned alone for that nonsense.
- the lack of 'American resolve' is a better explanation than lack of military or logistics. They still do have the devices, but not the will. And, to be honest, with the sudden reversion of theirs that's not just a sin but kind of a reassurance too...
- "their militaries will soon be killing Russians, before this is all over" - that's just won't happen (so highly unlikely). But, EU leading powers indeed need to understand that this will not end without many toes stepped on*. Hard. By EU weapons, money and resolve.
_
* ...and by now it's not just Russian toes anymore: there will be plenty of US toes there too, amongst many others...
"Resolve" to do what exactly? Thousands of Americans died and tens of thousands crippled for Israeli interests in the Middle East, and also leaving almost ten trillion in debt that's on the brink of triggering a soviet-style economic collapse in the US. Americans will not tolerate dying in another pointless war on the other side of the world for at least a generation.
I've spent the last three years telling euros this, but you always insisted that Americans would eagerly die by the millions fighting your petty tribal disputes. Now you're mad, and screaming that you hate America? All this does is prove that we were right to not want to die for you.
The "whole MAGA" stuff really has no intellectual basis. There is no substance to it IMHO.
Nonetheless, some commenters in the U.S. seem to suggest that Trump and his semi-ideology of MAGA seek a return to the America of the early 19th Century: Manifest Destiny, tariff issues between the North and the sectional South, and going it alone (the modern counterpart which proclaims "Who needs Canada?"), among other things. In truth (or rather IMHO), MAGA has nothing behind it but Trump's "Everybody look at me! ... Pay attention to me! ... Gratify (masturbate) me!" Trump has no plans. His behavior is erratic and only semi-predictible. Trump, seeminglly alike ole Adolf of old, has attracted a coterie of mostly guttersnipes (yes even Marco Rubio of all people) in his inner circle (the Cabinet and principal advisers), including the modern day Rudolph Hess, Gauleiter Elon Musk. ***
It didn't help the U.S. and the world, but especially our formerly best-friends northern neighbor, Canada, that President Biden was a weak kneed leader. Perhaps this is mostly due to his advanced age. The Presidency isn't really suitable for the geriatric set, among which now is iL Duce. However, I suspect that much is due to a succession of weak (intellectually or in personal character) presidents going back to William Jefferson Clinton. Perhaps further back? I never like Biden even in his earlier years of governmental service. I perceived that he lacked substance in his personality, not to mention lacking other attributes for effective leadership on the national level.
For the life of me right now I cannot see a decent future leader of the U.S. coming from either major political party. Perhaps there is a governor or two from the 50 States of the Union who might be a good candidate????
Trump has managed to open Pandora's box. I think that Europe of the Western Alliance is on its own, or perhaps should be on its own even if we Americans survive the current monster in chief and eventually elect a somewhat OK future president.
***Oh BTW, I just read "somewhere" online that those cowardly Republicans in the Congress are preparing a Bill that declares that critics of Donald Trump are suffering from the now recognized (by Republicans) TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, and requiring such to be subject to mental illness care which presumably means being subject to involuntary commitment. Perhaps this is fake news at this point, but I am not sure. I conclude, however, that my new home some day, in the near future, may be relocated to a mental institution! Anyone care to join me? **LOL**
Of course there is no intellectual basis for such a batch of sentimental non-sense. That's why so many people could sweep all their pent up controversial frustrations under the same rug.
Yes, the big secret with Trump is that there is no plan. Which presents opportunities for Europe to influence Trump. Just remember if it goes badly on Monday with Trump, you always have the rest of the week to change his mind.
Except perhaps for Trump's dealings with Musk. Trump may not be able to say, "No!" to the Gauleiter. After all, Musk bought Trump for around $300 million during this most recent U.S. election.
SOLICITING A MINOR FOR PROSECUTION DERANGEMENT SYNDROME
The aforementioned fake news is real news unfortunately, but with all things Trumpismo it seems as if reality, such as in the following article, more appropriately belongs to a Saturday Night Live skit.
Then why did they engineer the Maiden protest and the unlawful overthrow of a properly elected government to put their pro-Western stooges in place? One doesn't do this to some country one doesn't care about. The US is not happy until it controls the world. This is why it hates Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. They don't bow before the West and ask what they should do and when.
If America did want to overthrow a corrupt, repressive, dictatorial government, it would be smaller and closer to home, not Ukraine. Ukraine is a populous and proud country with a long, rich history. Only an idiot would attack them. So, logically you'd figure US might go after nearby, smaller corrupt places like Cuba, Venezuela, or Nicaragua. However if you recall the Cuban adventure 60 years ago, you know we're not trying that again.
True, America pushes against Russia, China, Iran, and NK. That's because they are corrupt, dictatorial evildoers. I do wonder, why did you list only evildoers who are half a planet away? When you make something up, based on the logic above, wouldn't it make more sense to list Cuba, Venezuela, or Nicaragua? After all, every day they send people to do evil in the US. Well, they did until recently.
Unless you are a clueless Russian troll fixated on Ukraine. Is that your angle?
Everyone already knew no country has ever bowed down to the US. The few who doubted this can now watch as Canada, Mexico, UK, Denmark, and Panama spit on the US.
Are you literally a child? Or have I found the only adult on earth who believes the advertisements for US interventions? This is an embarrassingly naïve worldview for an adult to have. The US only has interests. That's it. The US does not care about spreading democracy or freedom or toppling tyrants and dictators. Because the US only has interests. Just ask Suharto, the Somoza family, Mobutu Sese Seko, or even Israel or current day Saudi Arabia, a regime far more oppressive and "evil" than Iran.
Russia, China and Iran also only have interests. However, they are all strong enough to maintain and secure their interests without yielding to US interests. This explains the entirety of the disputes. Spreading democracy or fighting evil are not a part of the US foreign intervention manufacturing process, they are only really relevant as advertising when the product must be sold to the public.
"Evildoers", lmao. Seriously, c'mon, you cannot possibly be this wide-eyed and credulous.
I had not heard that. Who in USA is reported to have invited Ukraine to apply to NATO?
As with applications from Sweden and Finland, the process is deliberate. Also NATO country could block Ukraine. I would have expected Hungary and Turkey, and even USA, to be more vocal than France and Germany about any concerns.
In the USA, it's already since Vietnam, that the country is not 'fighting to win', but 'fighting to model and to profit'.
Means: the politics is 'modelling' some kind of fantastic outcomes to 'prevent some other of its imaginary outcomes', and whatever- The economy is influencing both the politics and the armed forces to act in interests of its profits.
...and the armed forces are happy to be idolised, while its top brass has nothing better in mind but to position themselves as future CEOs of different think-tanks or in the defence sector.
The result is that there is no trace of strategy.
No surprise then, the USA have no trace of clue about how to develop a strategy for any of its conflicts, no plan A, no plan B, and definitely nothing beyond that (no vision, not even understanding of local circumstances or how to influence these in positive sense).
Meanwhile, it's so far that Dumpf is ordering air strikes on the Houthis just for the purpose of distracting from the failure of his 'cease-fire/peace-negotiations with Moscow'. What is he - and what is anybody else - expecting the USA to 'win' there?
American fighter jets (modified and driven by Israel) stripped away Iranian air defenses in one night. Which Iran admits.
In the Red Sea, American ships swat away Iranian missiles the Houthis were led to believe were sinking American ships. In Ukraine, American tanks driven by trainees with no air cover (highly motivated, but trainees) have done OK. The problem is American tanks were designed to integrate with American air power. In Ukraine these tanks must hide from Russian / Iranian drones. Although 50 year old F16's can't provide the integrated systems supremacy American tanks were designed for, the F16's do knock out the best Russian jets and drones.
The truth is that America has provided only enough arms to keep Russia at bay. Europe has done the same. Reminds me of Vietnam among other places.
If you think that 2 hits on S-300s in Iran are 'stripping away Iranian air defences', and Iran admitted this... well, nice and fine with me. Even if I would love to see some more serious evidence for that: really, please feel good about such claims.
Alternativelly, you might want to inform yourself at least about the basics of the Iranian IADS':
'In the Red Sea'... the USA (and Israel) are trying to do what a much massive Saudi-led campaign lasting from 2009 to 2010, and from 2015 to 2022, didn't manage to do. Good luck with that, too.
Alternatively, you might realise that Dumpf's order to strike the Houthis was a distraction from his falling 'peace initiative' in Ukraine, and all the violations of the US Constitutions at home.
As for Ukrainian F-16s 'knocking out the best Russian jets'... drones, yes, jets: no trace of evidence for that. But, of course, you're free to show me some.
....just like you're, I hope, capable of proving evidence for how is anything of this evidence that the 40+ US 4-star generals are competent?
The last of your statement: yes, that's something I'll always agree with. What kind of indication for 'competent strategy' should that be... well, that's beyond my understanding.
Most news sources translated Khamenei as saying the results of Israel's action “should neither be exaggerated nor minimized.” Sound advice, but admits there were results.
I'm not aware of any claims that Iran downed even one IDF jet. IDF says they fired at many Iranian air defense sites and now all their jets can get thru. Iran has been publicly vague. If only 2 Iranian S-300's took minor hits, the Ukrainians have been much more successful than F-35I's against Russians.
Seemed instructive that Iran did not follow up on threats to exact revenge.
Trump doesn't need gratuitous distractions. Much remains to be seen, such as whether Houthi terror can be eliminated and what the Supremes will say about the constitutionality of Trump actions.
US reports are that the F-16's didn't have to knock out many Russian jets before they learned to vacate F-16 territory.
It is astounding to hear 44 x 4* generals, plus Admirals. They have delivered some impressive equipment.
Trump ran against providing Ukraine just enough to keep Russia at bay. No idea what strategy he will follow if (as it looks likely) Putin continues to reject ceasefire and peace proposals.
So you want a collection of individual nations to do what exactly? Hand over power to some overlord? Rush to make hasty decisions that might have worse results than you've listed? I don't argue with the failures you list other than you seem to think there is some 'we' that still includes America. I don't know when you wrote this but if it has been overtaken by events. And those events show the stupidity of electing a leader who does not consider his nation's friends and allies before taking rash, foolish actions. Talk is productive if it leads to sensible actions being taken. I note that you complain vociferously but say, in effect, nothing other than just 'do better'. I look forward to you posting a coherent plan.
I'm very disappointed by the comments that mock my prediction that Europe's tripwire force will need to kill Russians. This means several things.
1. My inclusion of Srebrenice went right over your head.
2. You are STILL unfamiliar with Putin and his strategies.
European forces will be required to defend themselves. This means targeting and killing Russians. Putin will not pass on the opportunity to incrementally test Europe's resolve.
Some of you are applauding European deliberation. Europe has been deliberating on this since 2014. Children are still dying in Ukraine. There is no amount of summits and deliberation that will take the place of decisive action. No amount of meetings that will come to any other conclusion than confrontation with Putin.
This comment made me laugh out loud, thanks. Any "European tripwire force" would just be incinerated with tactical nukes (and before you cry about article 5, Trump already made it clear that any euros in Ukraine do not qualify). Just because Slavs will have a trench war with some identical Slavs 30 minutes down the road doesn't mean they're going to tolerate a European invasion force. It's actually mad to even suggest they would.
The lesson from Srenebrica should not be forgotten, but maybe it has.
The point is suspect Benjamin is making is that at some point Putin will, deliberately, attack European military forces. This is how Putin works, push until he meets steel. He's met only mush so far, except in Ukraine.
I have no doubt, none at all, that Putin will attack European forces at some point, probably in a NATO country. He will do this to test the limits, if he meets steel he'll say 'oops, a big misunderstanding, it was a rogue commander
' - who'll fall out a hospital window or somesuch.
If he meets mush, 'peace talks', then, well, he'll keep pushing.
Be it Narva in Estonia or somewhere else, he's been making noises lately that Norway is militarizing Svalbard, as far from the truth as you can get, but that rhetoric opens the door for a Russian military 'response'.
Once he has a couple thousand troops there what is NATO to do? Or Narva, there's a terricon there that gives great line of sight for a defense position. Will trump commit NATO troops to liberate that 'russian speaking ' city in Estonia. I could go on but you get my drift.
It is inconceivably naive to think Putin will stop unless stopped. Anyone who thinks he'll honour any agreements should get their head examined.
So this will end in live fire on European troops, the question then is if they fire back. This is where Srenebrica comes in, they didn't fire back and 8000 men and boys were slaughtered before their eyes.
There won't be any nukes used, Putin has never been keen on real war, loves his creature comforts, and is above all a money grabbing criminal.
The real question is whether Europe will commit European troops to defend and/or liberate Svalbard and Estonia. Trump has been clear, his focus is MAGA, and the stuff you're talking about might as well be on the moon.
Exactly, and Putin knows and will try. One way or another, be it as peacekeepers in Ukraine or on their home soil, Europeans will very likely be firing on Russian soldiers sometime in the not too distant future.
EU peacekeeping accepted and deployed would mean a safe border for the Russians. Within any (sustainable) time period that would be just a blessing and relief for them along the actual frontline.
I cannot tell if that would be OK or not for Ukraine (or: for you). What I would prefer is just (monetary and military) support for Ukraine as needed, with far less limits than it has now - and at long term a strong EU which can sufficiently scare away Russia just by itself.
Sadly, this ignores the Middle East where Trump is still playing Netanyahu's games with Gaza and Lebanon, supplying Israel's wish lists for arms, and 'Decisively' striking the Houthi's while making threats to Iran.
TNetanyahu has amply demonstrated that his personal survival in office overrides all other considerations and it is a consensus among observers that he sees keeping Israel at war to be his best course for doing so. His perception that Trump will continue to show unwavering support will reinforce this belief.
Meanwhile the IDF has shown in Gaza and Lebanon that it has suffered a serious loss of combat effectiveness - bombing every suspicious building/location to keep from seeing its infantry risk casualties and thereby causing massive civilian casualties, a serious erosion of discipline with troops filming themselves committing war crimes and posting the videos on social media. Flying over an essentially undefended Syria and preemptively bombing weaponry and quote 'terrorists' is a provocation and one would think a wake up call to its neighbors regardless of the 'peace treaties' they have with Israel. Occupying Syrian and Lebanese territory only reinforces this. A significant factor in the (reportedly) successful Israeli defeat of Iran's two recent missile/drone attacks was the assistance of Egypt and Jordan in the interception of those attacks. Should cooperation cease it would not even require those countries to take hostile actions in order to see Israel suffer significant harm.
Should Israel push too far, an actual war in the Middle East would have serious consequences worldwide. Even without direct intervention by the US or Europe.
I find it to be far more of a threat to peace and stability than Trump's fickleness with respect to allies, although those allies do need to distance themselves when it comes to reliance on American weapons systems.
I think the only thing you missed is that though Israel stretched it but based on the (missing) reactions so far they did what they did in Gaza and in Lebanon with permit issued (from the Arabic League, more or less). And at the end they kept it within the tolerated limits.
For Palestinians and for (almost) everybody in Syria this may be a tragedy, but unless Trump messes up I expect no further instability from the region (for the close future, of course. At mid- and long term it'll remain the very embodiment of instability).
Houthis at this point haven't backed down - claiming to have hit a US carrier.
Trump is making noises about striking Iran (Netanyahu wet dream is US to do his dirty work there) as 'retaliation' for further Houthi attacks.
Israel is trying to use the Druze in Syria and Israel to 'blur' the border (apparently the thought is that the Syrian Druze will prefer to be second class citizens in Israel...).
While Arab governments don't want to rock the boat to any extent, the 'Street' is not happy. There might well be stability issues for the neighboring governments in the not distant future because of Israeli (and US) actions.
And there are Evangelicals in the US at least with dreams of Armageddon...
While Houthis have different overall objectives than Iran, their every action has aligned with Iran. Trump seems to now turn his attention to Houthis, perhaps more will become clear.
Trump has advisors that feed him garbage wrapped in flattery - his recent claim that Biden's pardons were invalid because they were signed using an 'autopen' is a case in point.
I will trust any intelligence reports issued by his administration just as much as those issued by Israel or Russia.
My recollection is that Iran actually was against the Houthi actions in support of Gaza, but it has been some time since reading that here on TOm's blog (and I have a real world to deal with so perhaps later for verification of that).
What limits? The US would look the other way if they went door-to-door pulling out women and children and executing them gangland style. The US would rage at any OTHER country who treated any other minority the way Israel has treated Palestinians. Then they complain about terrorism; terrorism was used to found Israel. If you don't want Palestinian "terrorists" try the Golden Rule for a change.
You cannot possibly be that naive, that nightmare has existed for well over a hundred years. The entire state is built on literal terrorism. Read about the Stern Gang (later Lehi), Irgun, or Hagana's Palmach, the Deir Yassin massacre, Sabra & Shatila, educate yourself of the teachings of Kahane (two followers were very recently in the Israeli cabinet, one kept a painting of terrorist and mass murderer Baruch Goldstein on his living room wall). Read about Zionist terror attacks on the British.
Read about the staggering amount of Israeli prime ministers who came up in these terror organizations (Yitzhak Shamir, who murdered a fellow leader to take charge of Lehi, Menachem Begin who led Irgun, even Yitzhak Rabin was leading Palmach during the Deir Yassin massacre).
Or read about very recent terror attacks against West Bank civilians by settlers.
Do read up on the Israeli Land Law and it's perverse incentives for terror.
The reality of it is that influential leaders (and the settler movement) want to annex the West Bank, Gaza Sinai, Jordan, and would kill every single Arab in the world if they thought they'd get away with it.
Do keep in mind I'm speaking of the leadership, I think the majority of Israelis want to live peaceful lives (at least I hope so, but things may have changed), and have no ambition to fulfill US evangelical Armageddon fantasies.
Chicken and egg situation isn't it, Zionists attack the British and the Arabs living under the British Mandate, British and Arabs retaliate, Zionists retaliate for the retaliation....
There have been decades of settler attacks on civilians in the West Bank, these are not in response to being attacked, they're land grabs under the Land Law - pure terrorism in order to steal their land.
Maybe the settlers should stop attacking the civilians in the West Bank?
Why did Ben Gvir hang a painting of mass murderer and terrorist Baruch Goldstein in his living room? I don't think the worshippers in the Cave of the Patriarchs were attacking anyone?
It does seems like the former minister of security has a skewed idea of who should be provided security?
The one truth here is that Ukraine will not accept...nor do they have to...any ceasefire negotiated by Trump and Putin. They will continue to fight till the last, if necessary. Europe's job is to provide the materials and funding. Russia is increasingly saddled with a collapsing economy. She can barely replace losses of men and material. Outlasting Russia in this war is the goal. A defeated Ukraine will leave Europe with Russia on their borders and the Baltics will be the next target. What Trump does is increasingly irrelevant to Ukraine and it should be for Europe as well.
There will be no shortage of armed personnel; they will come from North Korea, Iran, Nicaragua, Venezuela. Not from Cuba, because the young people have left; they have no one to command.
If Europe were to send Ukraine materials and funding, it would demonstrate interest, and America would pay attention. All we hear is talk & talk. Starmer said Europe needs American security guarantees before Europe will act. Which he (and Zelenskyy and Putin) know has always been a non-starter.
Putin is no more a dictator than Donald Trump. He was elected and the Russian people back him. We only call those dictators those we cannot control. Last time I checked, the President is supposed to apply to Congress for a Declaration of War before attacking whoever. The US has no ships going through the Red Sea. It is all about his blood brother, Netanyahu.
Your posts are silly. Hillary, Joe, and Kamala were actual choices running against Trump. Joe beat Trump, despite what Trump thought. The US has a whole bunch of ships in the Red Sea, turning Houthi puppets into dust.
Benjamin, if we could get all arms production over to meetings and seminars that would be great. Of course the meetings with the Russians would have to include a lot of vodka…
(1) Your view may be alone in Europe, but you are echoing Trump.
(2) Far too similar to Poland 1956, Hungary 1956, and Czech 1968. They led themselves to believe Europe and America would come to the rescue. At least Ukraine received some good weapons and used them to good effect. It looks like Ukraine will retain their sovereignty.
(3) In that famous photo where Merkel thought she was lecturing Trump, Trump was sitting back and marveling that Europe would play directly into Putin’s strategies.
Unfortunately, I agree with the comments below. I doubt Europe will act.
After 80 years, it is time for Europe to deal with Europe. NATO was about the USSR, which does not exist. Of course, the CIA/State Dept. won't let us out because they love to meddle in other country's affairs, be it Ukraine, Georgia, or Moldova. A Color Revolution for All!
Now you're spouting MAGA talking points! Apparently have not heard yet that Trump is slashing away at CIA funding, no more adventures for them. I should warn you that Americans believe the people of Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova deserve a decent country, not tied to Russia, the hell hole of all centuries. Well, maybe not ALL countries; for 80 year NK has been giving Russia strong competition for being the world's worst hell hole.
OH! We especially like Georgia! After all, we have a state named Georgia! Of course, our Georgia has like 5x more people than the country. Could you do me a favor and walk over to Putin's office and tell him that, from now on, we'll treat an attack on that Georgia like an attack on our Georgia???
"If we want to avoid an endless cycle of war in Ukraine, we need to face some hard truths. First, we have to understand why deterrence failed in the first place."
You are putting the cart before the horse. Let's not forget NATO and the US violated the agreement with Gobrachev that NATO would NEVER move eastward. What have they done? Moved as far east as they could. After WWII, do you think Russia would view kindly NATO, which is nothing but a military alliance, moving toward Russia as no big deal? Let's also remember how the CIA/State Dept. engineered the Maiden occupation in order to overthrow the properly elected government to allow a US puppet pro-Western government to be quickly installed and approved by the US in record time. Putin went to Washington asking for Ukraine to be a neutral country. He was effectively told, if Ukraine wants to join the EU and NATO, you have nothing to say about that. Let's not forget the Ukraine military had been attacking Russian-speaking provinces since 2014. So this silliness about Russia's "unprovoked" war is just so much nonsense and part of the Western lies continually told.
Whoever told you Gorbachev received assurances NATO would not move eastward misled you. Any country plausibly connected to the North Atlantic can apply to join NATO. Even Russia applied, although I assume that was Russian humor. There is no mechanism to blackball applicants.
Your second mention of NATO demonstrates you understand the truth. Only NATO members (not evildoers) have a say in who joins NATO. So far, NATO members have said no to Ukraine. You will recall Sweden and Finland both some difficulty joining NATO despite their obvious need to join and their obvious contributions. It's super helpful that the Baltic is now essentially a NATO lake that allows evildoers through.
Not only were Russia's attacks on Ukraine completely unprovoked, Putin told the world in both 2014 and 2022 he was not invading. It was a war crime when, in 2014, Putin sent in "little green men" without insignia. Sadly, the war crimes Russians committed in 2022 (rape of men and women, torture, and killing of innocents) were more egregious crimes. Not that anyone was surprised to see Putin orchestrate war crimes.
Literally everything you just wrote is factually incorrect, I do recommend reading something other than RT and watching Tucker Carlson.
Gorbatchev never received that assurance, what James Baker, as SecStateUS told him him, was that there would be no NATO presence in East Germany following reunification. There wasn't until Russia attacked a neighboring country. Gorbatchev has himself denied that he understood it as a forever embargo on NATO expansion, and Baker has stated he knew what he was saying wasn't policy, and couldn't become policy. He was being 'a bit cheeky'.
Gorbatchev was at the time a leader in name only of the USSR, which disappeared shortly after, any agreements with the USSR became null and void.
The USSR was not Russia, very roughly you could say that the seat of power was in Russia, but it was fueled by non-Russian member states, and fed by Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine (the latter also developed most of their tech and weaponry).
Yeltsin had no problems with NATO expansion, agreed to Poland joining, joined common trust building exercises with NATO (Partnership for Peace), including BALTOPS naval exercises, and mused with Clinton that one day Russia too may join NATO.
CIA/STATE had nothing to do with the Revolution of Dignity, even cursory knowledge of the facts should dispel that notion. It is true USStateDep had a preference for interim president after the traitor fled, that interim president immediately set in motion new elections and vetoed new wide ranging laws enacted by the Rada, stating he, and they, had no mandate. The interim president was supported by Yanukovych' faction in the Rada, who also voted to strip Yanukovych of the presidency due to abandonment of the post. New elections were held in a matter of months, resulting in Poroshenko's election. Many of Yanykovych deputies were re-elected, some are still in the Verkhovna Rada as deputies.
The Ukrainian military existed on paper only in January 2014 after Yanukovych had sold everything and fired everyone, it was not attacking any Russian speaking provinces, or anything else for that matter, they so struggled to react that they allowed the formation of militias to protect the south. What we do know is that Russian soldiers, sans insignia, invaded Ukraine, we also know that Ukrainian positions were bombed by artillery placed over the border, on Russian soil. We know that the 'popular' uprising was led by an ex-FSB Russian veteran with the nom du guerre Strelkov (Igor Girkin). We know that it was Russian speaking Ukrainians who stopped them. Girkin himself stated he'd order Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets in order to blame Ukraine, and is wanted for shooting down a civilian airliner with a Russian delivered BUK anti aircraft weapon.
After the initial Russian onslaught was stopped, the militias were incorporated into the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
You do need to read real history and not just Russian propaganda.
The problem with Iraq was not that the US did a bad job, it was that the reasoning for the invasion was based on a total lie. The Iraq war was a crime of monstrous proportions. It's this fact alone that has ruined whatever reputation the US may have had with the rest of the world, and it's why the denizens of the East and global south look askance at the events happening in Ukraine and America's role there.
What you call an "energy gamble" is simply two states trading with each other. Hate to break it to you but we live in a world of global trade and finance. This desire to trade is so strong that many European countries are still buying fossil fuel products from Russia, lol. Neither the EU/Germany or Russia had an issue with this mutually beneficial relationship, but... Hmm, gosh, I wonder if there's a significant entity who may have had a problem with it... Can anyone think of a state that may have had an issue with, I dunno, let's say, the construction of the Nord Stream pipeline, for example...?
"Misunderstanding dictators" lol. More baby-brained political analysis. The US does not give a flying fuck about dictators if they are pliant and/or beneficial to US interests. It's looking like Putin may soon begin to move into that category, btw... "Moral courage". Good grief. No wonder you're so lost and confused by current events. US interests dictate US foreign policy. Morals have absolutely nothing to do with it. Honestly, grow up. And by the way, while we're talking about US interests, they have mostly been achieved in Ukraine. Perhaps one day you'll realize that a Ukrainian victory was not required and the wellbeing of the Ukrainian people not a concern.
The irony of saying all this drivel, then suggesting we must "start dealing with the world we actually have", and then following that up by saying unless things change Europe will "need to get acquainted with the notion that their militaries will soon be killing Russians" is *chef's kiss*. Magnifique! Total self-unaware cluelessness and ignorance.
Europe isn't doing anything because, despite their protestations and constant public yelping otherwise, they know that "killing Russians" directly is not on the cards. Russia attacking the Baltics or whatever is just media fluff. It's lazy propaganda, slop for the swine. Russia will be lucky to satisfactorily complete its Ukraine adventure. And even if Russia dominates Ukraine it's not going to invade Poland or whatever daft prospect you believe is necessary to convince the US and EU of in order to compel them to care more about Ukraine. Ukraine is still mega-fucked either way, so I understand why they issue such dire warnings, but that doesn't mean we need to believe them.
"We believed economic ties would tame aggression."
Well, that is the so called success of the EU, the Western Europeans had to buy into after WWII and the Eastern Europeans happily bought into once Soviet control was over.
However, that is not all for plenty of people. The amount of power Putin posses is not comparable to anyone in the West and it was just very naive to think he will give it up for the wellbeing of his people.
How much he is caring about the wellbeing of his people is currently visible in Ukraine. As much as it is for plenty of Westerners - just have a look at the Epstein case, or the Sean Combs case, where the guy literally shit on people.
Well, as always, Tom hits the bull's eye. I don't even know what to add. Except to give a link to a good article by "Radio Free/RadioLiberty" that describes Putin's biography and what he was doing in the 90s.
With this article, you will understand that Putin is a ruthless criminal boss of a criminal group who came from the bottom, fell into crime, and was raised by killers from the NKVD/KGB. The article is in Russian, but you can always use a translator. There's a lot of interesting stuff in this article. Especially how Putin led criminal groups in the 90s and was involved in drug trafficking and "oil-for-food" schemes in which all the money from the sales was embezzled by his clan. Also, this article contains many interesting names. For example, the names of Prigozhin, Roman Tsepov or Semyon Mogilevich and others. All of them are somehow connected with crime. You may ask me what this information will give you? It will allow you to better understand who Putin is and his entourage.
«WikiLeaks cables link Russian mafia boss to EU gas supplies
This article is more than 14 years old
Semyon Mogilevich, one of FBI's most wanted people, identified as real power behind billionaire(Dmitry Firtash) owner of Ukrainian-based RUE» – WikiLeaks, Semyon Mogilevich, and Dmitry Firtash are one office of KGB/FSB agents.
Real biography of Dmitry Firtash(use a translator). Firtash is the wallet of Putin's Kremlin mafia. Firtash built his entire business thanks to the Kremlin's secret services.
By the way, Firtash is one of those Ukrainian (Kremlin) oligarchs who brought Zelensky to power. Firtash is the Kremlin's wallet, he owns a significant share of the Kremlin's assets in Ukraine and abroad. Firtash's TV channel (Inter) is currently participating in a "single marathon" of news along with Pinchuk's, Akhmetov's, and Kolomoisky's channels. During the Maidan, the Inter TV channel smeared the protests and, in unison with Russian propaganda, helped Yanukovych.
The Role of Oligarch Firtash in Trump's "Ukrainegate".
One other point on how the Middle East is of major importance to Europe and the rest of the world with regards to Putin and Russia - Netanyahu is providing a first class example to Putin in the use of false propaganda in establishing the narrative that he is a 'Savior of the West' in standing up to genocidal regimes (all while leading the worst in the region).
This has enabled him to order genocidal acts, territorial expansion, violate truces while blaming his opposition, purge internal dissent, and survive the disapproval of a majority of his own citizens.
To date Zionist organizations in America and other Western countries have helped Netanyahu promote his narratives and gloss over/ignore his crimes. The latest cease fire violation may have a negative impact on that - at least in Europe.
For Putin his chance has arrived with Trump's love affair with dictators and the rise in media of Tucker Carlson and other mouthpieces who tout Putin's 'conservative' values and decry the 'liberal' worldviews of Europe and Ukraine.
Indeed, the entire 'Jihadist Terror'-issue was created by Israel (i.e. the land-grab of the June 1967 Arab-Israel War): it was understood by the Saudis as 'religiously motivated army being more successful', and prompted them into financing the creation of 'similar armies' with dozens of billions, all over the Muslim world.
...with consequences as can be traced ever since...
"European leaders need to get acquainted with the notion that their militaries will soon be killing Russians, before this is all over."
This is, uh, very unlikely.
Yeah... and escalating to a direct NATO-Russia kinetic conflict in order to prevent a broader conflict seems to be a very fringe strategic concept.
"Dictators can't conquer Europe if there is no Europe!" is the most galaxy-brained take of them all.
You assume Russia wants a direct war with NATO.
I'm hesitant to underestimate Macron and Starmer's stupidity, but the best time for a direct NATO conflict was March 2022, when the Russian military was still strung out in Northern Ukraine and the "arsenal of democracy" was undepleted. If NATO wasn't willing to pull the trigger and risk nuclear war then, they're not now. Especially since the circumstances have since grown much more disadvantageous.
Not sure that's true. Since 2022 Ukraine destroyed the best of the Russian conventional (non-nuclear) military by using the surplus / obsolete arms NATO countries were going to scrap. No NATO country depleted any equipment they would have sent their own people into war with.
If you think the average American unit, let alone a NATO unit, is better equipped than the average Ukrainian unit then I got some really bad news for you lol.
Russia's military and MIC is larger, not smaller, than in 2022. Even surface-level knowledge of military history would tell you that nation states' military capabilities grow, not shrink, as a war continues.
Putin would be an absolute moron if he do not storm the Suwałki Gap in the next 4-8 years based on what happened in Ukraine such a limited special military operation would cost nothing and would give him everything
Last year, I would have agreed with you.
This year, I'll respectfully disagree.
Precisely for reasons listed in this article. Because (in)actions of our 'politicians' are all the while encouraging such like Pudding.
Putin came to Washington for diplomacy. Instead, he was told whatever happened to Ukraine was none of his business. Just look how Ukraine juts into Russia. What a stupid comment, but the West clearly wanted to goad Putin into war, defeat him, and then the Western companies could buy up Russian companies for pennies on the dollar. The West clearly instigated this war back when they started moving NATO eastward, violating their solemn vow to Gobrachev never to do so. The West lies all the time and no one in the Western media calls them out on it.
My dear, share your innermost secret - how do you live without a brain?
Ukrainian internal affairs are none of Putin's (nor anybody else's) business.
It's a simple as that.
'The West' also never 'instigated this war' by 'moving eastwards': sovereign countries have the right to join alliances of their choice, no matter who else might have something against that.
It doesn't matter whether Ukraine is 'jutting into Russia' or whatever. And if it does matter to Pudding, and he 'does not want war', he could've negotiated about that. Matter of fact is: he didn't. Instead, he opted for war - and then in Ukraine - and for two invasions.
(Ironically, characters like you do not complain about Sweden and Finland joining NATO, thus 'expanding' the alliance 'in eastern direction' - nor demand Russia to invade them. How comes?)
Pudding's intention was always imperialistic by nature: he 'must' go down in history of 'creator of Novorossia', and 'grand strategist that confronted NATO'... and, of course, safeguard his own regime. Because he always knew: a democratic, pluralist, and flourishing Ukraine was foremost dangerous for his own position.
Finally: nobody ever promised anything of that kind to Gorbachev. At most, there was never any kind of talk about NATO's expansion further east, because the talking-heads negotiating at the time, simply didn't come to the idea to think what might happen 10, 20, 30 years after the German re-union. This might be an unpleasant truth - foremost for the talking-heads in question, all of which are eager to 'secure their place in history' - but is a simple matter of fact. Just like modern-day politicians, they were too busy with 'dividents for the next quartal', but to come to the idea to think beyond that point.
Nope. You're getting nothing at all - except for the usual BS spread by Putin's PRBS-industrialists.
The West is lying, yes, all the time, but in regards of other things. For example, in regards of its 'support' for Ukraine: sweetalking and some bucks, but nothing more.
On the contrary, and to offer examples where the West is not lying: 'Maidan' was no 'CIA conspiracy', but Ukrainians raising against Putin's dictate; just like the uprising in Libya against Q was no 'CIA conspiracy', but, guess what: Libyans raising against a murderous dictator terrorising them for 40 years.
For people like oyu, that's 'unimaginable': therefore, it must be a 'CIA conspiracy'...
Re. how democratic the West is: depends on the country and period in question. The USA used to be 'very democratic'; since Pullizer ruined the authoritativeness of the original US press, back in the early 20th Century, or at least since Kennedy and/or Nixon, they're descending in a free fall, though.
Doesn't mean that everything happens because some dictator there issued an order - like this is the case in the USA under Dumpf, or in such lovely countries like Russia, North Korea, Iran etc.
And... oh my: keep your BS about me wanting a war to the last Ukrainian. Just fuck off with that. Banned alone for that nonsense.
In support of this, references are made to the actions of the pro-Putin brake of Europe, Orban
https://uatv.ua/uk/ugorshhyna-ne-pidtrymaye-initsiatyvu-yes-shhodo-vydilennya-ukrayini-novogo-paketa-dopomogy-boka/
as well as "peace-loving" German burghers
https://zn.ua/ukr/europe/lishe-30-nimtsiv-pidtrimujut-peredachu-raket-taurus-ukrajini-opituvannja.html
If so, then 'German Burgers'.
In German, you need no gh to pronounce g as g.
I think the same for most. Just two pieces:
- the lack of 'American resolve' is a better explanation than lack of military or logistics. They still do have the devices, but not the will. And, to be honest, with the sudden reversion of theirs that's not just a sin but kind of a reassurance too...
- "their militaries will soon be killing Russians, before this is all over" - that's just won't happen (so highly unlikely). But, EU leading powers indeed need to understand that this will not end without many toes stepped on*. Hard. By EU weapons, money and resolve.
_
* ...and by now it's not just Russian toes anymore: there will be plenty of US toes there too, amongst many others...
"Resolve" to do what exactly? Thousands of Americans died and tens of thousands crippled for Israeli interests in the Middle East, and also leaving almost ten trillion in debt that's on the brink of triggering a soviet-style economic collapse in the US. Americans will not tolerate dying in another pointless war on the other side of the world for at least a generation.
I've spent the last three years telling euros this, but you always insisted that Americans would eagerly die by the millions fighting your petty tribal disputes. Now you're mad, and screaming that you hate America? All this does is prove that we were right to not want to die for you.
You put a lot of words in my mouth I did not say. You are trolling 🧌 now.
This is a reply to Rive, so I'm not sure why you're being triggered on his behalf.
🤣 Sorry! Proceed!!!
As it's used to say, the one who wants to wear the crown must bear its weight.
_
Part of the whole MAGA stuff is about being (playing...) the world first (again&alone).
_
The previous US president tried to play that by commit mostly weapons and money only, while letting others do the work and die for their cause.
It was not satisfying enough, apparently.
So maybe you should tell all that to that new president there.
The "whole MAGA" stuff really has no intellectual basis. There is no substance to it IMHO.
Nonetheless, some commenters in the U.S. seem to suggest that Trump and his semi-ideology of MAGA seek a return to the America of the early 19th Century: Manifest Destiny, tariff issues between the North and the sectional South, and going it alone (the modern counterpart which proclaims "Who needs Canada?"), among other things. In truth (or rather IMHO), MAGA has nothing behind it but Trump's "Everybody look at me! ... Pay attention to me! ... Gratify (masturbate) me!" Trump has no plans. His behavior is erratic and only semi-predictible. Trump, seeminglly alike ole Adolf of old, has attracted a coterie of mostly guttersnipes (yes even Marco Rubio of all people) in his inner circle (the Cabinet and principal advisers), including the modern day Rudolph Hess, Gauleiter Elon Musk. ***
It didn't help the U.S. and the world, but especially our formerly best-friends northern neighbor, Canada, that President Biden was a weak kneed leader. Perhaps this is mostly due to his advanced age. The Presidency isn't really suitable for the geriatric set, among which now is iL Duce. However, I suspect that much is due to a succession of weak (intellectually or in personal character) presidents going back to William Jefferson Clinton. Perhaps further back? I never like Biden even in his earlier years of governmental service. I perceived that he lacked substance in his personality, not to mention lacking other attributes for effective leadership on the national level.
For the life of me right now I cannot see a decent future leader of the U.S. coming from either major political party. Perhaps there is a governor or two from the 50 States of the Union who might be a good candidate????
Trump has managed to open Pandora's box. I think that Europe of the Western Alliance is on its own, or perhaps should be on its own even if we Americans survive the current monster in chief and eventually elect a somewhat OK future president.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***Oh BTW, I just read "somewhere" online that those cowardly Republicans in the Congress are preparing a Bill that declares that critics of Donald Trump are suffering from the now recognized (by Republicans) TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, and requiring such to be subject to mental illness care which presumably means being subject to involuntary commitment. Perhaps this is fake news at this point, but I am not sure. I conclude, however, that my new home some day, in the near future, may be relocated to a mental institution! Anyone care to join me? **LOL**
Of course there is no intellectual basis for such a batch of sentimental non-sense. That's why so many people could sweep all their pent up controversial frustrations under the same rug.
Yes, the big secret with Trump is that there is no plan. Which presents opportunities for Europe to influence Trump. Just remember if it goes badly on Monday with Trump, you always have the rest of the week to change his mind.
"... to change his mind."
Except perhaps for Trump's dealings with Musk. Trump may not be able to say, "No!" to the Gauleiter. After all, Musk bought Trump for around $300 million during this most recent U.S. election.
SOLICITING A MINOR FOR PROSECUTION DERANGEMENT SYNDROME
The aforementioned fake news is real news unfortunately, but with all things Trumpismo it seems as if reality, such as in the following article, more appropriately belongs to a Saturday Night Live skit.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/18/minnesota-justin-eichorn-arrested-soliciting-minor
MAGA doesn't want to wear the crown. MAGA wants to address American issues, not European issues. I think this reality is a problem.
US has the will but little capabilities.
They struggle to make 155mm shells or PATRIOT rockets.
So US needs to act naive or tame just to look strong.
US doesn't see Ukraine as a central interest. Which Putin understands and Europe does not.
Then why did they engineer the Maiden protest and the unlawful overthrow of a properly elected government to put their pro-Western stooges in place? One doesn't do this to some country one doesn't care about. The US is not happy until it controls the world. This is why it hates Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. They don't bow before the West and ask what they should do and when.
If America did want to overthrow a corrupt, repressive, dictatorial government, it would be smaller and closer to home, not Ukraine. Ukraine is a populous and proud country with a long, rich history. Only an idiot would attack them. So, logically you'd figure US might go after nearby, smaller corrupt places like Cuba, Venezuela, or Nicaragua. However if you recall the Cuban adventure 60 years ago, you know we're not trying that again.
True, America pushes against Russia, China, Iran, and NK. That's because they are corrupt, dictatorial evildoers. I do wonder, why did you list only evildoers who are half a planet away? When you make something up, based on the logic above, wouldn't it make more sense to list Cuba, Venezuela, or Nicaragua? After all, every day they send people to do evil in the US. Well, they did until recently.
Unless you are a clueless Russian troll fixated on Ukraine. Is that your angle?
Everyone already knew no country has ever bowed down to the US. The few who doubted this can now watch as Canada, Mexico, UK, Denmark, and Panama spit on the US.
Are you literally a child? Or have I found the only adult on earth who believes the advertisements for US interventions? This is an embarrassingly naïve worldview for an adult to have. The US only has interests. That's it. The US does not care about spreading democracy or freedom or toppling tyrants and dictators. Because the US only has interests. Just ask Suharto, the Somoza family, Mobutu Sese Seko, or even Israel or current day Saudi Arabia, a regime far more oppressive and "evil" than Iran.
Russia, China and Iran also only have interests. However, they are all strong enough to maintain and secure their interests without yielding to US interests. This explains the entirety of the disputes. Spreading democracy or fighting evil are not a part of the US foreign intervention manufacturing process, they are only really relevant as advertising when the product must be sold to the public.
"Evildoers", lmao. Seriously, c'mon, you cannot possibly be this wide-eyed and credulous.
You should go back to Facebook or instagram to spread rf propaga which was already debunked years ago
US has invited Ukraine to NATO over the objections of France and Germany.
I had not heard that. Who in USA is reported to have invited Ukraine to apply to NATO?
As with applications from Sweden and Finland, the process is deliberate. Also NATO country could block Ukraine. I would have expected Hungary and Turkey, and even USA, to be more vocal than France and Germany about any concerns.
President Bush invited Ukraine to NATO at the Bucharest summit în 2008.
It's worse than that.
In the USA, it's already since Vietnam, that the country is not 'fighting to win', but 'fighting to model and to profit'.
Means: the politics is 'modelling' some kind of fantastic outcomes to 'prevent some other of its imaginary outcomes', and whatever- The economy is influencing both the politics and the armed forces to act in interests of its profits.
...and the armed forces are happy to be idolised, while its top brass has nothing better in mind but to position themselves as future CEOs of different think-tanks or in the defence sector.
The result is that there is no trace of strategy.
No surprise then, the USA have no trace of clue about how to develop a strategy for any of its conflicts, no plan A, no plan B, and definitely nothing beyond that (no vision, not even understanding of local circumstances or how to influence these in positive sense).
Meanwhile, it's so far that Dumpf is ordering air strikes on the Houthis just for the purpose of distracting from the failure of his 'cease-fire/peace-negotiations with Moscow'. What is he - and what is anybody else - expecting the USA to 'win' there?
I read recently the US won WWII with 7 4-star generals. We now have 44 4-star generals. A bit top-heavy, to say the least.
...what's worse: all are incompetents.
The ground forces can't win wars, while services can't design fighter jets, ships, tanks etc.
American fighter jets (modified and driven by Israel) stripped away Iranian air defenses in one night. Which Iran admits.
In the Red Sea, American ships swat away Iranian missiles the Houthis were led to believe were sinking American ships. In Ukraine, American tanks driven by trainees with no air cover (highly motivated, but trainees) have done OK. The problem is American tanks were designed to integrate with American air power. In Ukraine these tanks must hide from Russian / Iranian drones. Although 50 year old F16's can't provide the integrated systems supremacy American tanks were designed for, the F16's do knock out the best Russian jets and drones.
The truth is that America has provided only enough arms to keep Russia at bay. Europe has done the same. Reminds me of Vietnam among other places.
If you think that 2 hits on S-300s in Iran are 'stripping away Iranian air defences', and Iran admitted this... well, nice and fine with me. Even if I would love to see some more serious evidence for that: really, please feel good about such claims.
Alternativelly, you might want to inform yourself at least about the basics of the Iranian IADS':
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/quick-and-dirty-the-two-iranian-air
'In the Red Sea'... the USA (and Israel) are trying to do what a much massive Saudi-led campaign lasting from 2009 to 2010, and from 2015 to 2022, didn't manage to do. Good luck with that, too.
Alternatively, you might realise that Dumpf's order to strike the Houthis was a distraction from his falling 'peace initiative' in Ukraine, and all the violations of the US Constitutions at home.
As for Ukrainian F-16s 'knocking out the best Russian jets'... drones, yes, jets: no trace of evidence for that. But, of course, you're free to show me some.
....just like you're, I hope, capable of proving evidence for how is anything of this evidence that the 40+ US 4-star generals are competent?
The last of your statement: yes, that's something I'll always agree with. What kind of indication for 'competent strategy' should that be... well, that's beyond my understanding.
Most news sources translated Khamenei as saying the results of Israel's action “should neither be exaggerated nor minimized.” Sound advice, but admits there were results.
I'm not aware of any claims that Iran downed even one IDF jet. IDF says they fired at many Iranian air defense sites and now all their jets can get thru. Iran has been publicly vague. If only 2 Iranian S-300's took minor hits, the Ukrainians have been much more successful than F-35I's against Russians.
Seemed instructive that Iran did not follow up on threats to exact revenge.
Trump doesn't need gratuitous distractions. Much remains to be seen, such as whether Houthi terror can be eliminated and what the Supremes will say about the constitutionality of Trump actions.
US reports are that the F-16's didn't have to knock out many Russian jets before they learned to vacate F-16 territory.
It is astounding to hear 44 x 4* generals, plus Admirals. They have delivered some impressive equipment.
Trump ran against providing Ukraine just enough to keep Russia at bay. No idea what strategy he will follow if (as it looks likely) Putin continues to reject ceasefire and peace proposals.
Also to distract from the failure of the ceasefire he imposed on Israel in Gaza.
So you want a collection of individual nations to do what exactly? Hand over power to some overlord? Rush to make hasty decisions that might have worse results than you've listed? I don't argue with the failures you list other than you seem to think there is some 'we' that still includes America. I don't know when you wrote this but if it has been overtaken by events. And those events show the stupidity of electing a leader who does not consider his nation's friends and allies before taking rash, foolish actions. Talk is productive if it leads to sensible actions being taken. I note that you complain vociferously but say, in effect, nothing other than just 'do better'. I look forward to you posting a coherent plan.
You can find my plan on my Substack. Enjoy!
Is it up yet? I can't see it.
I'm very disappointed by the comments that mock my prediction that Europe's tripwire force will need to kill Russians. This means several things.
1. My inclusion of Srebrenice went right over your head.
2. You are STILL unfamiliar with Putin and his strategies.
European forces will be required to defend themselves. This means targeting and killing Russians. Putin will not pass on the opportunity to incrementally test Europe's resolve.
Some of you are applauding European deliberation. Europe has been deliberating on this since 2014. Children are still dying in Ukraine. There is no amount of summits and deliberation that will take the place of decisive action. No amount of meetings that will come to any other conclusion than confrontation with Putin.
This comment made me laugh out loud, thanks. Any "European tripwire force" would just be incinerated with tactical nukes (and before you cry about article 5, Trump already made it clear that any euros in Ukraine do not qualify). Just because Slavs will have a trench war with some identical Slavs 30 minutes down the road doesn't mean they're going to tolerate a European invasion force. It's actually mad to even suggest they would.
In a direct conflict with attacking NATO troops, Russia would absolutely use nukes.
"and then what?"
Then there are several hundred thousand dead NATO soldiers. And that's exactly why no such force will be sent.
The lesson from Srenebrica should not be forgotten, but maybe it has.
The point is suspect Benjamin is making is that at some point Putin will, deliberately, attack European military forces. This is how Putin works, push until he meets steel. He's met only mush so far, except in Ukraine.
I have no doubt, none at all, that Putin will attack European forces at some point, probably in a NATO country. He will do this to test the limits, if he meets steel he'll say 'oops, a big misunderstanding, it was a rogue commander
' - who'll fall out a hospital window or somesuch.
If he meets mush, 'peace talks', then, well, he'll keep pushing.
Be it Narva in Estonia or somewhere else, he's been making noises lately that Norway is militarizing Svalbard, as far from the truth as you can get, but that rhetoric opens the door for a Russian military 'response'.
Once he has a couple thousand troops there what is NATO to do? Or Narva, there's a terricon there that gives great line of sight for a defense position. Will trump commit NATO troops to liberate that 'russian speaking ' city in Estonia. I could go on but you get my drift.
It is inconceivably naive to think Putin will stop unless stopped. Anyone who thinks he'll honour any agreements should get their head examined.
So this will end in live fire on European troops, the question then is if they fire back. This is where Srenebrica comes in, they didn't fire back and 8000 men and boys were slaughtered before their eyes.
There won't be any nukes used, Putin has never been keen on real war, loves his creature comforts, and is above all a money grabbing criminal.
The real question is whether Europe will commit European troops to defend and/or liberate Svalbard and Estonia. Trump has been clear, his focus is MAGA, and the stuff you're talking about might as well be on the moon.
Exactly, and Putin knows and will try. One way or another, be it as peacekeepers in Ukraine or on their home soil, Europeans will very likely be firing on Russian soldiers sometime in the not too distant future.
Is this asshole's aggressive Russian Nazi propaganda and Ukraine-smearing really welcome here, Sarcastosaurus?
EU peacekeeping accepted and deployed would mean a safe border for the Russians. Within any (sustainable) time period that would be just a blessing and relief for them along the actual frontline.
I cannot tell if that would be OK or not for Ukraine (or: for you). What I would prefer is just (monetary and military) support for Ukraine as needed, with far less limits than it has now - and at long term a strong EU which can sufficiently scare away Russia just by itself.
Sadly, this ignores the Middle East where Trump is still playing Netanyahu's games with Gaza and Lebanon, supplying Israel's wish lists for arms, and 'Decisively' striking the Houthi's while making threats to Iran.
TNetanyahu has amply demonstrated that his personal survival in office overrides all other considerations and it is a consensus among observers that he sees keeping Israel at war to be his best course for doing so. His perception that Trump will continue to show unwavering support will reinforce this belief.
Meanwhile the IDF has shown in Gaza and Lebanon that it has suffered a serious loss of combat effectiveness - bombing every suspicious building/location to keep from seeing its infantry risk casualties and thereby causing massive civilian casualties, a serious erosion of discipline with troops filming themselves committing war crimes and posting the videos on social media. Flying over an essentially undefended Syria and preemptively bombing weaponry and quote 'terrorists' is a provocation and one would think a wake up call to its neighbors regardless of the 'peace treaties' they have with Israel. Occupying Syrian and Lebanese territory only reinforces this. A significant factor in the (reportedly) successful Israeli defeat of Iran's two recent missile/drone attacks was the assistance of Egypt and Jordan in the interception of those attacks. Should cooperation cease it would not even require those countries to take hostile actions in order to see Israel suffer significant harm.
Should Israel push too far, an actual war in the Middle East would have serious consequences worldwide. Even without direct intervention by the US or Europe.
I find it to be far more of a threat to peace and stability than Trump's fickleness with respect to allies, although those allies do need to distance themselves when it comes to reliance on American weapons systems.
I think the only thing you missed is that though Israel stretched it but based on the (missing) reactions so far they did what they did in Gaza and in Lebanon with permit issued (from the Arabic League, more or less). And at the end they kept it within the tolerated limits.
For Palestinians and for (almost) everybody in Syria this may be a tragedy, but unless Trump messes up I expect no further instability from the region (for the close future, of course. At mid- and long term it'll remain the very embodiment of instability).
Houthis at this point haven't backed down - claiming to have hit a US carrier.
Trump is making noises about striking Iran (Netanyahu wet dream is US to do his dirty work there) as 'retaliation' for further Houthi attacks.
Israel is trying to use the Druze in Syria and Israel to 'blur' the border (apparently the thought is that the Syrian Druze will prefer to be second class citizens in Israel...).
While Arab governments don't want to rock the boat to any extent, the 'Street' is not happy. There might well be stability issues for the neighboring governments in the not distant future because of Israeli (and US) actions.
And there are Evangelicals in the US at least with dreams of Armageddon...
The only Houthi claims I've seen is that they shot at the US Carrier Truman. They have now shot at the American navy some 165 times. To no effect.
Trump did say he'd hold Iran responsible for its puppets.
As Tom noted in one of his pieces on the region and its factions, the Houthis are not Iranian 'puppets.'
Obviously you disagree with his analysis of regional factions and their relationships.
But then, when Netanyahu creates the narrative, whoever Israel wants to target is a 'terrorist' and a 'puppet' of Iran.
While Houthis have different overall objectives than Iran, their every action has aligned with Iran. Trump seems to now turn his attention to Houthis, perhaps more will become clear.
Trump has advisors that feed him garbage wrapped in flattery - his recent claim that Biden's pardons were invalid because they were signed using an 'autopen' is a case in point.
I will trust any intelligence reports issued by his administration just as much as those issued by Israel or Russia.
My recollection is that Iran actually was against the Houthi actions in support of Gaza, but it has been some time since reading that here on TOm's blog (and I have a real world to deal with so perhaps later for verification of that).
What limits? The US would look the other way if they went door-to-door pulling out women and children and executing them gangland style. The US would rage at any OTHER country who treated any other minority the way Israel has treated Palestinians. Then they complain about terrorism; terrorism was used to found Israel. If you don't want Palestinian "terrorists" try the Golden Rule for a change.
If the Palestinians free the hostages, the nightmare they asked for will end.
You cannot possibly be that naive, that nightmare has existed for well over a hundred years. The entire state is built on literal terrorism. Read about the Stern Gang (later Lehi), Irgun, or Hagana's Palmach, the Deir Yassin massacre, Sabra & Shatila, educate yourself of the teachings of Kahane (two followers were very recently in the Israeli cabinet, one kept a painting of terrorist and mass murderer Baruch Goldstein on his living room wall). Read about Zionist terror attacks on the British.
Read about the staggering amount of Israeli prime ministers who came up in these terror organizations (Yitzhak Shamir, who murdered a fellow leader to take charge of Lehi, Menachem Begin who led Irgun, even Yitzhak Rabin was leading Palmach during the Deir Yassin massacre).
Or read about very recent terror attacks against West Bank civilians by settlers.
Do read up on the Israeli Land Law and it's perverse incentives for terror.
The reality of it is that influential leaders (and the settler movement) want to annex the West Bank, Gaza Sinai, Jordan, and would kill every single Arab in the world if they thought they'd get away with it.
Do keep in mind I'm speaking of the leadership, I think the majority of Israelis want to live peaceful lives (at least I hope so, but things may have changed), and have no ambition to fulfill US evangelical Armageddon fantasies.
Israelis have survived. Stop attacking them, and they will no longer need to defend themselves.
Chicken and egg situation isn't it, Zionists attack the British and the Arabs living under the British Mandate, British and Arabs retaliate, Zionists retaliate for the retaliation....
There have been decades of settler attacks on civilians in the West Bank, these are not in response to being attacked, they're land grabs under the Land Law - pure terrorism in order to steal their land.
Maybe the settlers should stop attacking the civilians in the West Bank?
Why did Ben Gvir hang a painting of mass murderer and terrorist Baruch Goldstein in his living room? I don't think the worshippers in the Cave of the Patriarchs were attacking anyone?
It does seems like the former minister of security has a skewed idea of who should be provided security?
The one truth here is that Ukraine will not accept...nor do they have to...any ceasefire negotiated by Trump and Putin. They will continue to fight till the last, if necessary. Europe's job is to provide the materials and funding. Russia is increasingly saddled with a collapsing economy. She can barely replace losses of men and material. Outlasting Russia in this war is the goal. A defeated Ukraine will leave Europe with Russia on their borders and the Baltics will be the next target. What Trump does is increasingly irrelevant to Ukraine and it should be for Europe as well.
There will be no shortage of armed personnel; they will come from North Korea, Iran, Nicaragua, Venezuela. Not from Cuba, because the young people have left; they have no one to command.
True - but Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua have all lost baseball stars and other young people to the USA.
If Europe were to send Ukraine materials and funding, it would demonstrate interest, and America would pay attention. All we hear is talk & talk. Starmer said Europe needs American security guarantees before Europe will act. Which he (and Zelenskyy and Putin) know has always been a non-starter.
The problem with appeasement is that is easy to see when it fails but harder to recognise when it has succeeded.
The appeasement works when the dictator wants just money, it does not work when the dictator is ideological - Putin, Hitler, Si ...
Putin is no more a dictator than Donald Trump. He was elected and the Russian people back him. We only call those dictators those we cannot control. Last time I checked, the President is supposed to apply to Congress for a Declaration of War before attacking whoever. The US has no ships going through the Red Sea. It is all about his blood brother, Netanyahu.
Your posts are silly. Hillary, Joe, and Kamala were actual choices running against Trump. Joe beat Trump, despite what Trump thought. The US has a whole bunch of ships in the Red Sea, turning Houthi puppets into dust.
Putin has murdered or imprisoned all of his serious opponents, election in Russia is a farce.
Benjamin, if we could get all arms production over to meetings and seminars that would be great. Of course the meetings with the Russians would have to include a lot of vodka…
Thanks for the analysis. Europe has certainly done many mistakes. But I believe we have woken up. Let’s see how we move forward.
(1) Your view may be alone in Europe, but you are echoing Trump.
(2) Far too similar to Poland 1956, Hungary 1956, and Czech 1968. They led themselves to believe Europe and America would come to the rescue. At least Ukraine received some good weapons and used them to good effect. It looks like Ukraine will retain their sovereignty.
(3) In that famous photo where Merkel thought she was lecturing Trump, Trump was sitting back and marveling that Europe would play directly into Putin’s strategies.
Unfortunately, I agree with the comments below. I doubt Europe will act.
After 80 years, it is time for Europe to deal with Europe. NATO was about the USSR, which does not exist. Of course, the CIA/State Dept. won't let us out because they love to meddle in other country's affairs, be it Ukraine, Georgia, or Moldova. A Color Revolution for All!
Now you're spouting MAGA talking points! Apparently have not heard yet that Trump is slashing away at CIA funding, no more adventures for them. I should warn you that Americans believe the people of Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova deserve a decent country, not tied to Russia, the hell hole of all centuries. Well, maybe not ALL countries; for 80 year NK has been giving Russia strong competition for being the world's worst hell hole.
OH! We especially like Georgia! After all, we have a state named Georgia! Of course, our Georgia has like 5x more people than the country. Could you do me a favor and walk over to Putin's office and tell him that, from now on, we'll treat an attack on that Georgia like an attack on our Georgia???
Yeah, that would be swell.
"If we want to avoid an endless cycle of war in Ukraine, we need to face some hard truths. First, we have to understand why deterrence failed in the first place."
You are putting the cart before the horse. Let's not forget NATO and the US violated the agreement with Gobrachev that NATO would NEVER move eastward. What have they done? Moved as far east as they could. After WWII, do you think Russia would view kindly NATO, which is nothing but a military alliance, moving toward Russia as no big deal? Let's also remember how the CIA/State Dept. engineered the Maiden occupation in order to overthrow the properly elected government to allow a US puppet pro-Western government to be quickly installed and approved by the US in record time. Putin went to Washington asking for Ukraine to be a neutral country. He was effectively told, if Ukraine wants to join the EU and NATO, you have nothing to say about that. Let's not forget the Ukraine military had been attacking Russian-speaking provinces since 2014. So this silliness about Russia's "unprovoked" war is just so much nonsense and part of the Western lies continually told.
Whoever told you Gorbachev received assurances NATO would not move eastward misled you. Any country plausibly connected to the North Atlantic can apply to join NATO. Even Russia applied, although I assume that was Russian humor. There is no mechanism to blackball applicants.
Your second mention of NATO demonstrates you understand the truth. Only NATO members (not evildoers) have a say in who joins NATO. So far, NATO members have said no to Ukraine. You will recall Sweden and Finland both some difficulty joining NATO despite their obvious need to join and their obvious contributions. It's super helpful that the Baltic is now essentially a NATO lake that allows evildoers through.
Not only were Russia's attacks on Ukraine completely unprovoked, Putin told the world in both 2014 and 2022 he was not invading. It was a war crime when, in 2014, Putin sent in "little green men" without insignia. Sadly, the war crimes Russians committed in 2022 (rape of men and women, torture, and killing of innocents) were more egregious crimes. Not that anyone was surprised to see Putin orchestrate war crimes.
Literally everything you just wrote is factually incorrect, I do recommend reading something other than RT and watching Tucker Carlson.
Gorbatchev never received that assurance, what James Baker, as SecStateUS told him him, was that there would be no NATO presence in East Germany following reunification. There wasn't until Russia attacked a neighboring country. Gorbatchev has himself denied that he understood it as a forever embargo on NATO expansion, and Baker has stated he knew what he was saying wasn't policy, and couldn't become policy. He was being 'a bit cheeky'.
Gorbatchev was at the time a leader in name only of the USSR, which disappeared shortly after, any agreements with the USSR became null and void.
The USSR was not Russia, very roughly you could say that the seat of power was in Russia, but it was fueled by non-Russian member states, and fed by Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine (the latter also developed most of their tech and weaponry).
Yeltsin had no problems with NATO expansion, agreed to Poland joining, joined common trust building exercises with NATO (Partnership for Peace), including BALTOPS naval exercises, and mused with Clinton that one day Russia too may join NATO.
CIA/STATE had nothing to do with the Revolution of Dignity, even cursory knowledge of the facts should dispel that notion. It is true USStateDep had a preference for interim president after the traitor fled, that interim president immediately set in motion new elections and vetoed new wide ranging laws enacted by the Rada, stating he, and they, had no mandate. The interim president was supported by Yanukovych' faction in the Rada, who also voted to strip Yanukovych of the presidency due to abandonment of the post. New elections were held in a matter of months, resulting in Poroshenko's election. Many of Yanykovych deputies were re-elected, some are still in the Verkhovna Rada as deputies.
The Ukrainian military existed on paper only in January 2014 after Yanukovych had sold everything and fired everyone, it was not attacking any Russian speaking provinces, or anything else for that matter, they so struggled to react that they allowed the formation of militias to protect the south. What we do know is that Russian soldiers, sans insignia, invaded Ukraine, we also know that Ukrainian positions were bombed by artillery placed over the border, on Russian soil. We know that the 'popular' uprising was led by an ex-FSB Russian veteran with the nom du guerre Strelkov (Igor Girkin). We know that it was Russian speaking Ukrainians who stopped them. Girkin himself stated he'd order Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets in order to blame Ukraine, and is wanted for shooting down a civilian airliner with a Russian delivered BUK anti aircraft weapon.
After the initial Russian onslaught was stopped, the militias were incorporated into the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
You do need to read real history and not just Russian propaganda.
The problem with Iraq was not that the US did a bad job, it was that the reasoning for the invasion was based on a total lie. The Iraq war was a crime of monstrous proportions. It's this fact alone that has ruined whatever reputation the US may have had with the rest of the world, and it's why the denizens of the East and global south look askance at the events happening in Ukraine and America's role there.
What you call an "energy gamble" is simply two states trading with each other. Hate to break it to you but we live in a world of global trade and finance. This desire to trade is so strong that many European countries are still buying fossil fuel products from Russia, lol. Neither the EU/Germany or Russia had an issue with this mutually beneficial relationship, but... Hmm, gosh, I wonder if there's a significant entity who may have had a problem with it... Can anyone think of a state that may have had an issue with, I dunno, let's say, the construction of the Nord Stream pipeline, for example...?
"Misunderstanding dictators" lol. More baby-brained political analysis. The US does not give a flying fuck about dictators if they are pliant and/or beneficial to US interests. It's looking like Putin may soon begin to move into that category, btw... "Moral courage". Good grief. No wonder you're so lost and confused by current events. US interests dictate US foreign policy. Morals have absolutely nothing to do with it. Honestly, grow up. And by the way, while we're talking about US interests, they have mostly been achieved in Ukraine. Perhaps one day you'll realize that a Ukrainian victory was not required and the wellbeing of the Ukrainian people not a concern.
The irony of saying all this drivel, then suggesting we must "start dealing with the world we actually have", and then following that up by saying unless things change Europe will "need to get acquainted with the notion that their militaries will soon be killing Russians" is *chef's kiss*. Magnifique! Total self-unaware cluelessness and ignorance.
Europe isn't doing anything because, despite their protestations and constant public yelping otherwise, they know that "killing Russians" directly is not on the cards. Russia attacking the Baltics or whatever is just media fluff. It's lazy propaganda, slop for the swine. Russia will be lucky to satisfactorily complete its Ukraine adventure. And even if Russia dominates Ukraine it's not going to invade Poland or whatever daft prospect you believe is necessary to convince the US and EU of in order to compel them to care more about Ukraine. Ukraine is still mega-fucked either way, so I understand why they issue such dire warnings, but that doesn't mean we need to believe them.
"We believed economic ties would tame aggression."
Well, that is the so called success of the EU, the Western Europeans had to buy into after WWII and the Eastern Europeans happily bought into once Soviet control was over.
However, that is not all for plenty of people. The amount of power Putin posses is not comparable to anyone in the West and it was just very naive to think he will give it up for the wellbeing of his people.
How much he is caring about the wellbeing of his people is currently visible in Ukraine. As much as it is for plenty of Westerners - just have a look at the Epstein case, or the Sean Combs case, where the guy literally shit on people.
Well, as always, Tom hits the bull's eye. I don't even know what to add. Except to give a link to a good article by "Radio Free/RadioLiberty" that describes Putin's biography and what he was doing in the 90s.
https://www.svoboda.org/a/29758933.html
With this article, you will understand that Putin is a ruthless criminal boss of a criminal group who came from the bottom, fell into crime, and was raised by killers from the NKVD/KGB. The article is in Russian, but you can always use a translator. There's a lot of interesting stuff in this article. Especially how Putin led criminal groups in the 90s and was involved in drug trafficking and "oil-for-food" schemes in which all the money from the sales was embezzled by his clan. Also, this article contains many interesting names. For example, the names of Prigozhin, Roman Tsepov or Semyon Mogilevich and others. All of them are somehow connected with crime. You may ask me what this information will give you? It will allow you to better understand who Putin is and his entourage.
My little addition to the article above.
«WikiLeaks cables link Russian mafia boss to EU gas supplies
This article is more than 14 years old
Semyon Mogilevich, one of FBI's most wanted people, identified as real power behind billionaire(Dmitry Firtash) owner of Ukrainian-based RUE» – WikiLeaks, Semyon Mogilevich, and Dmitry Firtash are one office of KGB/FSB agents.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-russian-mafia-gas
Real biography of Dmitry Firtash(use a translator). Firtash is the wallet of Putin's Kremlin mafia. Firtash built his entire business thanks to the Kremlin's secret services.
https://project.liga.net/projects/firtash/
By the way, Firtash is one of those Ukrainian (Kremlin) oligarchs who brought Zelensky to power. Firtash is the Kremlin's wallet, he owns a significant share of the Kremlin's assets in Ukraine and abroad. Firtash's TV channel (Inter) is currently participating in a "single marathon" of news along with Pinchuk's, Akhmetov's, and Kolomoisky's channels. During the Maidan, the Inter TV channel smeared the protests and, in unison with Russian propaganda, helped Yanukovych.
The Role of Oligarch Firtash in Trump's "Ukrainegate".
https://www.dw.com/ru/%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C-%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%85%D0%B0-%D1%84%D0%B8%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B0-%D0%B2-%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%B5-%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B0/a-52245368
One other point on how the Middle East is of major importance to Europe and the rest of the world with regards to Putin and Russia - Netanyahu is providing a first class example to Putin in the use of false propaganda in establishing the narrative that he is a 'Savior of the West' in standing up to genocidal regimes (all while leading the worst in the region).
This has enabled him to order genocidal acts, territorial expansion, violate truces while blaming his opposition, purge internal dissent, and survive the disapproval of a majority of his own citizens.
To date Zionist organizations in America and other Western countries have helped Netanyahu promote his narratives and gloss over/ignore his crimes. The latest cease fire violation may have a negative impact on that - at least in Europe.
For Putin his chance has arrived with Trump's love affair with dictators and the rise in media of Tucker Carlson and other mouthpieces who tout Putin's 'conservative' values and decry the 'liberal' worldviews of Europe and Ukraine.
Indeed, the entire 'Jihadist Terror'-issue was created by Israel (i.e. the land-grab of the June 1967 Arab-Israel War): it was understood by the Saudis as 'religiously motivated army being more successful', and prompted them into financing the creation of 'similar armies' with dozens of billions, all over the Muslim world.
...with consequences as can be traced ever since...