8 Comments

Russia is trapped in a horrific quagmire. And yet large sections of the commentatriat keep trying to persuade everyone that the risk is of the West tiring of this conflict. The West is standing back and watching Russia bleed. This has been a huge strategic mistep for Russia.

Expand full comment

You seem like a nice person.

Expand full comment

Aren't you the same asshole who was lecturing other countries about freedom of expression when they banned BBC? now you are banning people from commenting on your blog? and you support banning of russian media in your country? LMAO, just like your ancestors, you are a deeply racist, a pathetic weasel and rotten gammon and I can't wait you to beaten the fuck out by russians. Rot in hell asshole.

Expand full comment

next time you lecture someone or some country about freedom of expression, buy a fucking mirror, apply george soros's semen on your hand and beat the fuck out of yourself.

Expand full comment

1) Russia is running out of ammunition. I am not sure China will want to be dragged into this conflict directly by replacing these. So, ultimately, there would be a situation where a ceasefire would be best for Russia. Can Ukraine take advantage of this? Would it be provided the ammunitions (Ukraine is also burning up ammunitions).

2) At Yalta and Potsdam, Stalin's stance was that for USSR's security it needed a sphere of influence in east Europe. Germany had invaded through 'Finland, Romania and Poland...This was possible because at that time, governments hostile to Soviet Union existed in these countries. What can there be surprising about the fact that the Soviet Union, anxious for its future safety, is trying to see to it that governments loyal in their attitude to the Soviet Union should exist in these countries?" -- Stalin, 1946.

As this current war ends, we can forget Putin's remarks about Ukrainian history -- this is not relevant. What is relevant is that post-Putin Russians will continue to feel that they are trapped by hostile NATO. [See Mary Sarotte, "Not an inch more"]. Most wars come from misunderstandings from OUR view and THEIR view, and not ability to see the other's point. The issue of NATO expansion will need to be addressed.

3) The comment below "Which of the Superpowers wins out n Asia" is not helpful.

The Asians should win out in Asia -- not a SuperPower. The days of Monroe Doctrine is over.

Expand full comment

The Asians 'should win' in Asia. But who 'should' win is irrelevant. We live in the era of Monroe doctrine type politics. Superpowers vie for control and influence. That's the reality.

Expand full comment

Yes, true that indeed is the reality. This is why I get perplexed when people take high moral grounds in geopolitics!

Expand full comment

Thinking on the same lines as most of what you say especially how we’re in the extraordinary scenario in history where both the opposing superpowers are seeing a net gain from this war. Both the US and China look powerful relevant and serious on the world stage. Both are profiting handsomely now and in the long term. Both acquire greater influence and say in new areas.

It kind of reminds me of the decline of Britain post WW2 where both the US and USSR gained after the Suez debacle and then ongoing declining British presence globally in specific parts of the world.

I’m impatient and kind of want this war to hurry up and Ukraine to smash through and gain a victory for us all. Then we can get on to the real business of seeing which of the two superpowers wins out in Asia. Hopefully America without a shot fired again.

Expand full comment