Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

[contricusc]

If playing it easy mode is the high standard of statesmanship then I'll give you this one time.

You can call it “easy mode” if you like, but Iraq and Iran have plenty of oil and yet still lost the game on “easy mode”. Saddam was a nationalist and Khomeini a theocrat, and both had lots of oil, yet both failed.

Technically their model is only sustainable with the Americans preventing any major power surrounding them to impose their will. There's nothing very special from these two.

Once the American lose its ability to police the world, the very existence of these countries (Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain icluded) is under a big question mark.

When you lead a country, you must achieve the maximum possible results under the given circumstances. The given circumstances after WW2 was a world dominated by the US Western world, and the Soviet Union.

Each leader had the chance to choose its alliance and model of development. Some chose wisely (like Singapore’s Lee or UAE’s sheicks) and their countries flourished with investment and development, while others chose badly (like Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, etc.) and left their countries on tatters.

Great leaders understand the circumstances and make the most out of their given hand. Bad leaders overplay their hand and ruin their countries.

The worst thing you can do is to challenge the hegemon and lose. You don’t challenge the hegemon unless you are able to win. A wise leader understands his power limits and acts accordingly. Trying to overthrow the global order like Hitler did and ending with your country in ruin is not the hallmark of a great leader.

Russia meanwhile didn't need that kind of American assurance, nor do they actively finds ways to have one. There's simply no comparison between the brilliance of Putin and the circumstances he faced, with those country you mentioned.

Actually Putin had even better opportunities, because his country had a huge nuclear arsenal and was under no threat of being invaded by the US. This gave him more independence and allowed him to challenge US economic hegemony, if only he knew how to do it. But he didn’t know, because he is stupid.

He chose to oppose the US where the US is strongest, in the military realm, and he ruined his country while doing it.

The average Gulf Arabs have a good life, due to the fact that they are oil rich, and America didn't mess them up.

This is not the same with the likes of Iraq, Iran or Yemen who faces sanctions. Like I said, if wealth is the ultimate goal, then Putin whould've copied the Arab monarchs. But then again statesmanship is not always about Wealth and standard of life, sometimes it has something to do with showing grit and political superiority (like imposing your will on neighboring countries).

Those countries face sanctions because they chose to. Nobody forced them to harbor terrorists and oppose the pax Americana. Nobody forced Saddam to invade Kuwait, or the Iranians to hold the US embassy hostage.

They made their bed, and now they sleep in it. While the Gulf countries took posetion of their oil riches from their former colonial overlords through diplomacy and political ability, Iran and Iraq tried to do it through force, and this is why they are where they are now.

And for a good leader, the wealth of his country and its people is the ultimate goal. Only fools think otherwise. Putin didn’t copy the Arab monarchs because he was too stupid to do it. If he did, Russia would have been a much wealthier and powerful country now, at peace and awash with foreign investment. Instead, he chose to be a pariah and to run a failed state. This is the epitome of bad leadership.

The Civil War is made possible by the West who actively assisted the rebels with air power. Now those rebels are fighting each other one by one and the country is destroyed.

Don't get me wrong am not a Gaddafi admirer, he is a Secularists while I am a Theocrat. But let's be honest here at least, it's the West who destroyed Libya.

It is Gaddafi who destroyed Libya. If he was friendly with the West, instead of supporting terrorists who downed civilian planes, he could have turned Libya into an UAE at the Mediterranean. The oil riches and the geographic location of Libya gave him the perfect opportunity to build one of the wealthiest countries on earth. Instead, he turned it into a tribal battleground.

Bad leaders alway blame their enemies for their failure, instead of looking into the mirror. Why did they choose the wrong allies and the wrong enemies to begin with? Smart leaders choose their side wisely.

He is sort of a 'bad leader' ngl, am no fans of Soekarno. I merely put him as an example of how hard is it to achieve the two main problem of a statesmen outside of the West, namely :

1. Political Independence
2. Running the State

Some leaders are good at running No.2 but not No.1, others are good in running No.1 but not No.2.

Gaddafi, seems to be able to run 1 and 2 just fine until his downfall. Putin as well, even though not perfect.

The problem to begin with is, why do you want to be outside the West, when it is much easier to prosper by being an ally to the West?

I mean, you can even be a dictator and a Western ally, like bin Salman, so it should really not be a hard choice. Wise leaders choose to align themselves with the West, as it is much easier to achieve prosperity and development for their countries by being on the winning side.

Do you know the Arab Kingdom, Palmyra ? It used to be a Roman Colony, but prosperous.

Now ask the Arab, do they identify with Palmyra or with the likes of Umayyads and Abbasids ?

Most of them will pride themselves as being descendant of those 2 and not Palmyra.

But the people of Palmyra during Roman times lived better than the people under the Umayyads and the Abbasids, so I would definitely choose Plamyra.

If you want to be #1, be sure to be independent. Japan thinks that by befriending the West they could be #1. What they get is the lost decade. The West will give some wealth and prosperity, but they hold the leash.

But if you can‘t be number one, it’s better to befriend the West and be a strong developed country. Japan is much better now than it was at the end of WW2, when it tried to be number one.

The only way to defeat them is to collapse the order that they set, through political and military warfare. And Russia is doing its share right now in Ukraine.

But for most countries, it is much better to just prosper under the current order. Why challenge a world order that allows you to be wealthy and developed, in order to replace it with a new one where there will be constant war and poverty? It makes no sense.

Russia will not be the new hegemon by doing what it is doing now. Even if it somehow manages to collapse the current world order, it will find itself in a much more difficult situation as the servant of China, which has a direct border with Russia and even teritorial claims.

For Russia, it would have been much smarter to play by the rules and become a wealthy developed Western country. But Putin chose to keep his country an “independent” sh!thole.

 

[Gary]

You can call it “easy mode” if you like, but Iraq and Iran have plenty of oil and yet still lost the game on “easy mode”. Saddam was a nationalist and Khomeini a theocrat, and both had lots of oil, yet both failed.

It is easy. Both Singapore and UAE doesn't actually have to worry about an actual invasion of the country. Singapore could act like they're serious about their defense (which they are), but at the end of the day, their survival plan rests in the hope that the Americans will be stopping any invasion of their land before they run out of either men or ammo and they know that, everybody knows that.

There's no existential threat faced by these two countries, that's why you see the UAE able to do expeditionary campaign in the Socotra while not having to call up for conscription at home out of fear of an Iranian invasion. This is very easy !

When you lead a country, you must achieve the maximum possible results under the given circumstances. The given circumstances after WW2 was a world dominated by the US Western world, and the Soviet Union.

Each leader had the chance to choose its alliance and model of development. Some chose wisely (like Singapore’s Lee or UAE’s sheicks) and their countries flourished with investment and development, while others chose badly (like Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, etc.) and left their countries on tatters.

In war the result is never final (Clauseweitz).

Libya and their likes prospers much with their collaboration with the Soviets, until the Soviets are no more. The same could and will eventually happens to the ones who dangle under the armpits of the West at some point in time.

Great leaders understand the circumstances and make the most out of their given hand. Bad leaders overplay their hand and ruin their countries.

The worst thing you can do is to challenge the hegemon and lose. You don’t challenge the hegemon unless you are able to win. A wise leader understands his power limits and acts accordingly. Trying to overthrow the global order like Hitler did and ending with your country in ruin is not the hallmark of a great leader.

Not quite. Remember this ?

Early Muslim conquests - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On paper they're not able to win, but they won. And the old Pax Romana/Persiana cease to exist, and things like this happens multiple times in history, just because some guy called Hitler failed in HIS endeavor, doesn't mean the plan is not sound.

Sometimes it's not about the aggregate power, if everything is about aggregate power, you the West would have won in Afghanistan and Viet Nam.

Actually Putin had even better opportunities, because his country had a huge nuclear arsenal and was under no threat of being invaded by the US. This gave him more independence and allowed him to challenge US economic hegemony, if only he knew how to do it. But he didn’t know, because he is stupid.

He chose to oppose the US where the US is strongest, in the military realm, and he ruined his country while doing it.

Contrary to popular belief, Russia is not ruined. Their economy is doing great, people doesn't live in bunkers in Moscow. Most of the time life is pretty normal in Russia and wages are actually up. The hardships is not that great consider the gain he made in Ukraine in terms of land and manpower addition.

Those countries face sanctions because they chose to. Nobody forced them to harbor terrorists and oppose the pax Americana. Nobody forced Saddam to invade Kuwait, or the Iranians to hold the US embassy hostage.

Nobody forced the Americans to keep israel...yet they do it anyway.

Look whatever the problems is between Iraq and Kuwait is between the two. am sure there are many cases of invasions that the US simply ignore. It's not about Kuwait, it's about Iraq which at the time had the 4th largest army on the planet. And this army is feared by the Americans (and the Jewish neocons) to be able to challenge them in the future. So just like in Libya, they're actively finding a loophole to destroy it. Saddam on his part, didn't have the foresight and decided to give the US the openings.

Don't get me wrong, Saddam has his own merit. The militancy and general chaos in the Middle-East would have not been possible without his shortsightedness . Which I appreciate

They made their bed, and now they sleep in it. While the Gulf countries took posetion of their oil riches from their former colonial overlords through diplomacy and political ability, Iran and Iraq tried to do it through force, and this is why they are where they are now.

And for a good leader, the wealth of his country and its people is the ultimate goal. Only fools think otherwise. Putin didn’t copy the Arab monarchs because he was too stupid to do it. If he did, Russia would have been a much wealthier and powerful country now, at peace and awash with foreign investment. Instead, he chose to be a pariah and to run a failed state. This is the epitome of bad leadership.

Yes and have US bases in Russia + Western mole in the government.

It is Gaddafi who destroyed Libya. If he was friendly with the West, instead of supporting terrorists who downed civilian planes, he could have turned Libya into an UAE at the Mediterranean. The oil riches and the geographic location of Libya gave him the perfect opportunity to build one of the wealthiest countries on earth. Instead, he turned it into a tribal battleground.

I mean downing planes seems to be the norm, the Americans shot down Iran 655, Ukraine shot down MH17, the Soviets shot down Korea 007 etc. So what ?

Bad leaders alway blame their enemies for their failure, instead of looking into the mirror. Why did they choose the wrong allies and the wrong enemies to begin with? Smart leaders choose their side wisely.

If this is the case, then Lithuania, Latvia, Germany and their likes should stop confronting Russia, consider that their energy mainly comes from Russia.

The problem to begin with is, why do you want to be outside the West, when it is much easier to prosper by being an ally to the West?

Why did Europe so desperate to be outside of the Mongol realm ? Consider that even Mongols promote prosperity and trade ?

Fate of Empires - John Glubb Pasha

I mean, you can even be a dictator and a Western ally, like bin Salman, so it should really not be a hard choice. Wise leaders choose to align themselves with the West, as it is much easier to achieve prosperity and development for their countries by being on the winning side.

This works in secondary countries, Russia is not and does not see themselves as secondary countries. They see themselves as one of the greats.

But the people of Palmyra during Roman times lived better than the people under the Umayyads and the Abbasids, so I would definitely choose Plamyra.

Bullshit, the most prosperous the Arabs has ever been is in the time of Umar II. Where tax collectors couldn't find a suitable poor to distribute the Zakat (Charity).

But if you can‘t be number one, it’s better to befriend the West and be a strong developed country. Japan is much better now than it was at the end of WW2, when it tried to be number one.

But Russia wants to be number one. And if they wanted it really bad. Then there's no other way. This IS the way.

But for most countries, it is much better to just prosper under the current order. Why challenge a world order that allows you to be wealthy and developed, in order to replace it with a new one where there will be constant war and poverty? It makes no sense.

Makes no sense to you. Makes sense for Putin.

 

[contricusc]

It is easy. Both Singapore and UAE doesn't actually have to worry about an actual invasion of the country. Singapore could act like they're serious about their defense (which they are), but at the end of the day, their survival plan rests in the hope that the Americans will be stopping any invasion of their land before they run out of either men or ammo and they know that, everybody knows that.

There's no existential threat faced by these two countries, that's why you see the UAE able to do expeditionary campaign in the Socotra while not having to call up for conscription at home out of fear of an Iranian invasion. This is very easy !

You are missing the big picture. You assume that these countries are safe by default, so it is easy for them. But the reality is that they’ve built this safety net by allowing huge amounts of foreign investments into their countries and getting themselves heavily integrated in the global economic order. By doing this, they have aligned their interests with those of the global financial elite, and ensured their protection.

The easiest and cheapest way to get protection as a country is to attract foreign investment. Once wealthy foreigners and their big corporations are heavily invested in your country, they have the interest to keep it safe and protected, and will not allow some stupid dictator to destroy you.

Singapoe and the UAE played by the rules of the modern globalized world, while Putin still plays by the rules of the pre WW2 world. This is why the former prospered while the latter is fighting a border war and it is struggling to keep its people safe from Ukrainian fire.

I choose the model of those wealthy countries that enjoy peace and prosperity without fighting any war, as they have navigated the modern world with skill and vision. Russia on the other hand is left behind because they are unable to see the forest from the trees, just like you.

Lee of Singapore died of old age leaving his country as one of the wealthiest in the world and being revered by its people. Saddam and Gaddafi died while defeated and killed by their own people, leaving their countries in ruin. I know who was a real leader, and who were just two stupid uneducated thugs.

 

[Gary]

You are missing the big picture. You assume that these countries are safe by default, so it is easy for them. But the reality is that they’ve built this safety net by allowing huge amounts of foreign investments into their countries and getting themselves heavily integrated in the global economic order. By doing this, they have aligned their interests with those of the global financial elite, and ensured their protection.

The easiest and cheapest way to get protection as a country is to attract foreign investment. Once wealthy foreigners and their big corporations are heavily invested in your country, they have the interest to keep it safe and protected, and will not allow some stupid dictator to destroy you.

Singapoe and the UAE played by the rules of the modern globalized world, while Putin still plays by the rules of the pre WW2 world. This is why the former prospered while the latter is fighting a border war and it is struggling to keep its people safe from Ukrainian fire.

I choose the model of those wealthy countries that enjoy peace and prosperity without fighting any war, as they have navigated the modern world with skill and vision. Russia on the other hand is left behind because they are unable to see the forest from the trees, just like you.

Lee of Singapore died of old age leaving his country as one of the wealthiest in the world and being revered by its people. Saddam and Gaddafi died while defeated and killed by their own people, leaving their countries in ruin. I know who was a real leader, and who were just two stupid uneducated thugs.

No country is the same :

Singapore is a regular country, Russia is a great power. Their perceptions and goals are guaranteed different.

It's the same as Monaco and the USA, difference in size, scope and capability meant that each countries pursue different paths. Am I going to say that Monaco is not successful as a country just because they have no foreign bases ? Absolutely not. Because that is not their main reason to exist.


For the likes of Singapore, their main concern is just to stay alive, they don't even want to be a country to begin with (Malaysia simply kicked them out of the federation). How Lee was able to turn that situation, maintaining Singapore's independence and achieving high standard of living is something to commend in itself, but that's not to say that the same could be applied to other countries.

Russia doesn't have the same problem with Singapore. Their main concern is what all great power is concerned about : Imposing will on neighbors, near and far.

The entire Russian resource is and must be diverted to achieve this goal:

1. Pacify all neighboring countries​

2. Turn them into allies and maintain Hegemony in Eastern Europe under Moscows tutelage.​

And the Soviet Union is kinda successful in this regard.

The fall of the Soviet Union meant that Kremlin has failed the state's main mission. From the 90s to 2010s, multiple former subordinate of Moscow switched side to NATO and if nothing is done, then one day Moscow itself will be subordinate to the West.

The absolute brilliance of Putin is he did not let this happens at all. In 2008 he manages to prevent the accession of Georgia into NATO, now in 2024 Georgia is a loyal ally to Moscow. Now he's trying the same with Ukraine and I hope he's successful in this regard. as he's doing it for the betterment of Russia after he left.

Had Yeltsin is still around, Ukraine would've easily joined NATO and the EU and Russia couldn't maintain power outside maybe Central Asia or Belarus. Ukraine is the most important Russian land outside of Russia itself, so the fact that Putin didn't get distracted by internal politicking shows that he understand the basics of the state's raison d'etre and geopolitics, unlike the Arab rulers of the gulf. In that regard, Putin deserve commendation and respect.


Unless of course you're a Westerner LOL.

 

[Gary]

First Ukraine
Then the Baltics
Then Slovakia, Czechia
Then Poland
Then Romania

 

[Bogeyman]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821342954998345972

 

[TR_123456]

First Ukraine
Then the Baltics
Then Slovakia, Czechia
Then Poland
Then Romania

You know that would be a big problem since those countries are in NATO territory and Russia would not risk a war with NATO?
No country would.

 

[Gary]

You know that would be a big problem since those countries are in NATO territory and Russia would not risk a war with NATO?
No country would.

I know.
But that is where statecraft and political skills are needed. Putin knows that.

You know, NATO isn't the first security alliance to be created. There use to be a similar pact between France-GB-Poland.

If Putin is smart he would throw mess in the Middle East by supplying weapons to the Houthis and the Islamists. Make the US busy in the Middle East while waiting for the Chinese to move at Taiwan. Once that happens and the US is stretched. Make a move towards the Baltics, tests the willingness of NATO minus USA to defend tiny Baltic States.

If NATO responds, back down for a while
If NATO don't respond. Swallow all three Baltic states.

 

[UkroTurk]

Ukrainian troops approached the regional center of Sudzha in the Kursk region, - BILD analyst

 

[mehmed beg]

You know that would be a big problem since those countries are in NATO territory and Russia would not risk a war with NATO?
No country would.

My friend, I don't know how to write you directly. So I use this method.
As you know I never report anyone but I think that it is time to ban this charlatan provocatour..
Maybe some time ago he kinda had something to say but he just irritates people here.
This is not debate or argument anymore, he is here just to write anything in a ' contraire of anything someone says.
You deleted my previous posts, in those I proved that this guy knows nothing about the religion. In fact I have a good reason to believe that he isn't even that.
In reality, he is closest to Daesh ideology.
The gentleman can hit the gym and try to cure his inferiority complexes there , not to play the games here

 

[TR_123456]

I know.
But that is where statecraft and political skills are needed. Putin knows that.

You know, NATO isn't the first security alliance to be created. There use to be a similar pact between France-GB-Poland.

If Putin is smart he would throw mess in the Middle East by supplying weapons to the Houthis and the Islamists. Make the US busy in the Middle East while waiting for the Chinese to move at Taiwan. Once that happens and the US is stretched. Make a move towards the Baltics, tests the willingness of NATO minus USA to defend tiny Baltic States.

If NATO responds, back down for a while
If NATO don't respond. Swallow all three Baltic states.

Yes,why didnt Putin think of that or did he and knew that it woudnt matter.
GB,France,Türkiye,Italy,Spain,Sweden,Finland,Poland,Greece would not be enough to deter Russia,right?
You need to be rational and use logic,stay away from Hollywood scenario's.

 

[TR_123456]

My friend, I don't know how to write you directly. So I use this method.
As you know I never report anyone but I think that it is time to ban this charlatan provocatour..
Maybe some time ago he kinda had something to say but he just irritates people here.
This is not debate or argument anymore, he is here just to write anything in a ' contraire of anything someone says.
You deleted my previous posts, in those I proved that this guy knows nothing about the religion. In fact I have a good reason to believe that he isn't even that.
In reality, he is closest to Daesh ideology.
The gentleman can hit the gym and try to cure his inferiority complexes there , not to play the games here

This platform does not restrict opinions as long as the opinion is within forum rules.

 

[Ryder]

You can call it “easy mode” if you like, but Iraq and Iran have plenty of oil and yet still lost the game on “easy mode”. Saddam was a nationalist and Khomeini a theocrat, and both had lots of oil, yet both failed.



When you lead a country, you must achieve the maximum possible results under the given circumstances. The given circumstances after WW2 was a world dominated by the US Western world, and the Soviet Union.

Each leader had the chance to choose its alliance and model of development. Some chose wisely (like Singapore’s Lee or UAE’s sheicks) and their countries flourished with investment and development, while others chose badly (like Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, etc.) and left their countries on tatters.

Great leaders understand the circumstances and make the most out of their given hand. Bad leaders overplay their hand and ruin their countries.

The worst thing you can do is to challenge the hegemon and lose. You don’t challenge the hegemon unless you are able to win. A wise leader understands his power limits and acts accordingly. Trying to overthrow the global order like Hitler did and ending with your country in ruin is not the hallmark of a great leader.



Actually Putin had even better opportunities, because his country had a huge nuclear arsenal and was under no threat of being invaded by the US. This gave him more independence and allowed him to challenge US economic hegemony, if only he knew how to do it. But he didn’t know, because he is stupid.

He chose to oppose the US where the US is strongest, in the military realm, and he ruined his country while doing it.



Those countries face sanctions because they chose to. Nobody forced them to harbor terrorists and oppose the pax Americana. Nobody forced Saddam to invade Kuwait, or the Iranians to hold the US embassy hostage.

They made their bed, and now they sleep in it. While the Gulf countries took posetion of their oil riches from their former colonial overlords through diplomacy and political ability, Iran and Iraq tried to do it through force, and this is why they are where they are now.

And for a good leader, the wealth of his country and its people is the ultimate goal. Only fools think otherwise. Putin didn’t copy the Arab monarchs because he was too stupid to do it. If he did, Russia would have been a much wealthier and powerful country now, at peace and awash with foreign investment. Instead, he chose to be a pariah and to run a failed state. This is the epitome of bad leadership.



It is Gaddafi who destroyed Libya. If he was friendly with the West, instead of supporting terrorists who downed civilian planes, he could have turned Libya into an UAE at the Mediterranean. The oil riches and the geographic location of Libya gave him the perfect opportunity to build one of the wealthiest countries on earth. Instead, he turned it into a tribal battleground.

Bad leaders alway blame their enemies for their failure, instead of looking into the mirror. Why did they choose the wrong allies and the wrong enemies to begin with? Smart leaders choose their side wisely.



The problem to begin with is, why do you want to be outside the West, when it is much easier to prosper by being an ally to the West?

I mean, you can even be a dictator and a Western ally, like bin Salman, so it should really not be a hard choice. Wise leaders choose to align themselves with the West, as it is much easier to achieve prosperity and development for their countries by being on the winning side.



But the people of Palmyra during Roman times lived better than the people under the Umayyads and the Abbasids, so I would definitely choose Plamyra.



But if you can‘t be number one, it’s better to befriend the West and be a strong developed country. Japan is much better now than it was at the end of WW2, when it tried to be number one.



But for most countries, it is much better to just prosper under the current order. Why challenge a world order that allows you to be wealthy and developed, in order to replace it with a new one where there will be constant war and poverty? It makes no sense.

Russia will not be the new hegemon by doing what it is doing now. Even if it somehow manages to collapse the current world order, it will find itself in a much more difficult situation as the servant of China, which has a direct border with Russia and even teritorial claims.

For Russia, it would have been much smarter to play by the rules and become a wealthy developed Western country. But Putin chose to keep his country an “independent” sh!thole.

Arabs conquered the Romans and the Persians swiftly because Romans and the Persian taxes were so oppressive and feudal.

That the locals overthrew their overlords and welcomed their new ones.

Muslim Seljuks easily made their way into Anatolia because all they cared about was their tribute not overburdened taxes from the locals.

Over burdened tax system is literally still alive today. Its theft and slavery at its core.

In Australia our taxation system is literally robbery. Doesnt matter what career you do or even what business you do half of it goes to tax then you have this tax, that tax, this bullshit tax and fck me tax.

I say this here when civilisation collapses the Nomads will survive and thrive.

 

[Gary]

Yes,why didnt Putin think of that or did he and knew that it woudnt matter.
GB,France,Türkiye,Italy,Spain,Sweden,Finland,Poland,Greece would not be enough to deter Russia,right?
You need to be rational and use logic,stay away from Hollywood scenario's.

If you look closely I started with the weakest of the bloc, the Baltics. And there's actually a study about this by a Western think tank back then (FPRI iirc). The scenario involved Russia 'testing waters' by occupying parts of the Baltics and then wait for NATO response. From there Russia could either :

1. Press forward
2. Back Down if NATO is actually serious

The scenario involved American fast response brigade moving in swiftly to block the Russians
But back then, America is not so far stretched like now. The US is like 60-70% of NATO.

Put the US out of the equation and add the nuclear equation. There's room to gamble here.

 

[contricusc]

Arabs conquered the Romans and the Persians swiftly because Romans and the Persian taxes were so oppressive and feudal.

Over burdened tax system is literally still alive today. Its theft and slavery at its core.

In Australia our taxation system is literally robbery. Doesnt matter what career you do or even what business you do half of it goes to tax then you have this tax, that tax, this bullshit tax and fck me tax.

I totally agree with you. If the West is to collapse, it will happen because of overtaxation. If a great power wants to usurp the West, all it needs to do is to offer a low tax business friendly environment and attract investment.

Productive people are fed up with the high taxation, and this is why countries like the UAE have prospered, because a lot of competent people moved there since they have lower taxes.

Imagine what would happen if a bigger country with a better geography and nice weather would have no taxation and a business friendly environment. That would attract all the talent from the West.

I wish Milei success in reforming Argentina. He has a very hard task at hand, but at least he is the first leader of a big country who tries to do what is right. If he manages to stabilize the economy so he is able to reduce taxes and attract investment, Argentina will start to grow and would have huge potential. If only he can stay in power long enough to implement his plans.

 

[contricusc]

Russia doesn't have the same problem with Singapore. Their main concern is what all great power is concerned about : Imposing will on neighbors, near and far.

That’s because they are led by stupid people. An intelligent person would understand that the main concern for a counry like Russia should be to develop its economy and improve the standard of living and the education of its people. Once the country gets strong enough economically, the influence on its neighbors will come naturally, without effort.

The entire Russian resource is and must be diverted to achieve this goal:

1. Pacify all neighboring countries​

2. Turn them into allies and maintain Hegemony in Eastern Europe under Moscows tutelage.​

This is a recipe for failure, and it is playing in front of our eyes. Russia wasted its resources by pouring them into unproductive objectives like mantaining hegemony and bullying its neighbors. The results are easy to see. Their neighbors hate them, some of them have already turned away, while the rest are looking for the right time to escape. In the meantime, many Russians still lack access to indoor plumbing and are uneducated brutes. What a failure of a country!

First Ukraine
Then the Baltics
Then Slovakia, Czechia
Then Poland
Then Romania

I’d say the most likely scenario is that after Ukraine, there will be Belarus and Georgia. Those countries will rebel too and will want to get away from the Russian oppression.

As for Russia trying its hand at those Nato/EU countries, that would be really suicidal. Not only they would lose Kaliningrad, but who knows what else (Belarus for sure).

 

[Relic]

This push into Kursk Oblast by Ukraine is extremely smart. Russia's summer offensive is dying out in all sectors with the exception of the push to Pokrovsk, which has proven to be extremely bloody and is chewing up Russian equipment at an alarming rate.

By Ukraine pouring an estimated 5000-7000 troops into Kursk, Russia has no choice but to send 2-3x that number to stop the penetration. Those same troops were destined for the Pokrovsk front, or to maintain the Russian footholds along the border near Kharkiv. Russia will now longer be able to fully concentrate on offensive in the East and will instead have to divert critical armor, artillery and aviation support to the Kursk region, where attrition will be high for the defender due to the overwhelming initiative Ukraine has in the sector, which was completely unprotected.

Having already shot down two Russian KA-52s and an MI-28 that were responding, Ukraine has already proven that they have brought with them the necessary equipment to combat Russian CAS. Inevitably, Russia will start launching glide bombs on their own territory in an effort to stop the Ukrainians from further advancing. It's yet to be seen if Ukraine has a viable plan for challenging those SU-34s as far as 70km away from the front lines.

 

[Gary]

That’s because they are led by stupid people. An intelligent person would understand that the main concern for a counry like Russia should be to develop its economy and improve the standard of living and the education of its people. Once the country gets strong enough economically, the influence on its neighbors will come naturally, without effort.

Ummm no, it is exactly due to Russian economic uncompetitiveness with the West that a military option is necessary.

There's no scenario whatsoever in which Russia could level its economic output to the West, even if they push all of their resources to do so. The alternative is to integrate, but integration means servitude.

I think this is already a correct path, if you consider Russia's security situation and resources. The return of investment is faster through wars than some economic competition with the West to win Ukraine.

This is a recipe for failure, and it is playing in front of our eyes. Russia wasted its resources by pouring them into unproductive objectives like mantaining hegemony and bullying its neighbors. The results are easy to see. Their neighbors hate them, some of them have already turned away, while the rest are looking for the right time to escape. In the meantime, many Russians still lack access to indoor plumbing and are uneducated brutes. What a failure of a country!

Russia could recede back to 1918 standard of living, but if at the same time they manages to secure Ukraine and Belarus. I would consider this a geopolitical success.

 

[Relic]

This is when I wish Western politicians were more committed to Russia's defeat in Ukraine. The Ukrainians are in the process of mobilizing approximately 400,000 new troops to bolster their existing military and replenish the high levels of attrition that they have faced. Meanwhile, Russia's 2024 offensive is culminating, with only one remaining strategic target (Pokrovsk) under serious threat. Russia's military production capacity has peaked for all intents and purposes and their output of weapon systems will actually drop in 2025, as they run out of easy-to-repair / refurbish MBTs and IFVs, forcing them to dig deeper into their stockpiles and recover older equipment of low quality, with longer repair times.

The West, contrary to reporting, still has plentiful numbers of excess MBTs, IFVs, APCs, artillery and aircraft at it's disposal. This is the time to give the Ukrainians a substantial boost and put the Russians on their back foot.

M1A1 Abrams, Leopard 1s, Leopard 2s, PT-91s, AMX10-RCs, Bradleys, Marders, CV90s, BMP-1/2s, Rosomaks, Strykers, M113s, VABs, M109s, Panzerhaubitze 2000s, CAESARs, M777s, M198s, American F-16s, etc... There are still plentiful quantities of these in Western inventories, many of them destined to never be used again. Instead of paying to dispose of them later, send as much as you reasonably can to Ukraine in conjunction with training their newly conscripted soldiers. Put Russia in a terrible place...

 

[contricusc]

Ummm no, it is exactly due to Russian economic uncompetitiveness with the West that a military option is necessary.

Wrong. The economic uncompetitiveness means the military option is destined to fail.

There's no scenario whatsoever in which Russia could level its economic output to the West, even if they push all of their resources to do so. The alternative is to integrate, but integration means servitude.

Wrong again. If I were the leader of Russia, I would set it on a path to become the wealthiest and most developed country in the world in 50 years time, but their low-IQ leaders are unable to do that.

I think this is already a correct path, if you consider Russia's security situation and resources. The return of investment is faster through wars than some economic competition with the West to win Ukraine.

Wrong again. The return on investment through war is most likely negative. At the current time, they were in no position to compete with the West for Ukraine, so they should have just folded and allowed Ukraine to join the West, while focusing on their own economic and social development.

They picked the wrong fight at the wrong time with the wrong enemy. This is the definition of a strategic blunder, but it is to be expected from a stupid leader like Putin.

Russia could recede back to 1918 standard of living, but if at the same time they manages to secure Ukraine and Belarus. I would consider this a geopolitical success.

This is because your mentality and way of thinking is still at 1918 standards…

Meanwhile, the rest of the world has advanced another century.