World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
A playbook to defeat your enemy's country without fighting a war: Your ideas?
message 51:
by
Nik
(new)
Apr 09, 2024 10:07PM
As any country Ukraine can do wrong, but in no world was an invasion justified
reply
|
flag
There is one path of conquest which hasn't been mentioned, religion.It's a slow burn, but once it gets going it is something to behold. If you go by the church's timeline, Christianity went from a few rural Jews revering the missing body of an executed nobody to the state religion of the world's largest empire in less than three centuries. "With this sign, conquer."
I can assure you that there are no nazis in Ukraine. It's putler's primitive invention. They call Ukrainian patriots - nazis. If anything russia is full of real neo - nazis, probably among zenith damn petersburg fans more than in most European countries.
J. wrote: "... Christianity went from a few rural Jews revering the missing body of an executed nobody to the state religion of the world's largest empire in less than three centuries ..."Too bad Jews didn't pretend to believe it themselves to reap the fruits of Christianity :)
Very good point, J.
I am convinced that the UK and some other Western European countries will become Muslim states within the next few decades.
This won't just be down to immigration, it'll be a result of large numbers of the indigenous population converting too.
Reason is that sooner or later, the economic sh*t is going to hit the fan due to debt. You know this. And in times of crisis, humans turn to God. Islam is by far the fastest growing and most active religion over here, so it's perfectly positioned to reap the rewards.
In fact, I'm so certain this is going to happen, I spent a lot of time writing a novel about it:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thirty-Years...
And before any silent group observers think I'm a member of the dreaded 'Far Right' and put me on a list (lol), I portray Islam sympathetically, respectfully, and one of the two heroes of the story is a Muslim.
Nik will be dismayed to learn that in my book, putler is still alive and is governing an area encompassing both Russia and China :)
I am convinced that the UK and some other Western European countries will become Muslim states within the next few decades.
This won't just be down to immigration, it'll be a result of large numbers of the indigenous population converting too.
Reason is that sooner or later, the economic sh*t is going to hit the fan due to debt. You know this. And in times of crisis, humans turn to God. Islam is by far the fastest growing and most active religion over here, so it's perfectly positioned to reap the rewards.
In fact, I'm so certain this is going to happen, I spent a lot of time writing a novel about it:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thirty-Years...
And before any silent group observers think I'm a member of the dreaded 'Far Right' and put me on a list (lol), I portray Islam sympathetically, respectfully, and one of the two heroes of the story is a Muslim.
Nik will be dismayed to learn that in my book, putler is still alive and is governing an area encompassing both Russia and China :)
Btw, forgot to say to Barbara after reading the recent posts...
You and I are on the same page on a lot of things 👍
You and I are on the same page on a lot of things 👍
Beau wrote: "Interesting posts.The Israel/ Palestine and Russia/ Ukraine conflicts have one big difference...
The former involves a rich, heavily-armed state which is surrounded by poorer enemies, many of wh..."
Beau wrote, 'If the West hadn't meddled in Ukrainian affairs there wouldn't have been a situation to begin with.'
The UK, Russia and the US were signatories to the Budapest memorandum of 1994 as guarantors of Ukraine's independence.
If the UK and US had meddled in 2014 when Russia annexed the Crimea, THEN we wouldn't have the situation to begin with.
You blame Biden and Boris for not agreeing peace talks post invasion. The only mention of peace talks was that instigated by Turkey which Zelensky refused to even recognise. Do you blame him after he has been invaded?
The main difference between Russian and Western political system is not Russia's lack of subtlety: it is something called Democracy. That is what divides Russia, China, all Muslim states and Cuba from the rest of us. That is our Red line. That is what socially and with weapons we spilt blood to achieve and to help others do the same. That is why we don't want Trumps and Orbans and Putins in charge of anything other than dump trucks.
We didn't isolate Russia. They did it all by themselves by annexing half of Europe. That is the ire that drives Putin: he is an Empirist as well as a Stalinist.
Mike wrote: "Ian wrote: "In this sense, Israel is correct in that Hamas must eventually be defeated, but if anyone has seen the footage of the state of Gaza now, essentially a pile of rubble, they would know th..."How does the US finance Russia?
Ian wrote: "Nik wrote: "t would be nice, if it aligned with the developments. What was red line warning and how did nato keep poking the bear exactly? By threatening with sanctions if they invaded Ukraine?If ..."
It is no secret that a number of Congressmen wanted to bring Ukraine into NATO before Russia's invasion. I think their reasoning was that it would prevent such a thing happening, not in order to sell armaments.
You are citing the biggest liar about Ukraine, who denies its existence. It’s just bollocks, Mike
Nik wrote: "I can assure you that there are no nazis in Ukraine. It's putler's primitive invention. They call Ukrainian patriots - nazis. If anything russia is full of real neo - nazis, probably among zenith d..."Nik, we have been through this before and yes, technically you are correct. To be a Nazi you have to be a paid-up member of the NASDP, and their membership office closed in 1945. However, the Azov regiment (it has grown!) uses the Wolfsangel symbol, which was the symbol of the Panzer Division Das Reich, and many of the members of the regiment carry swastikas as tattoos. The Maidan coup had many Wolfsangfel flags being fluttered, as noted in video clips. A broader account can be found here: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3....
So no, there are no paid-up NASDP members there, but anyone with anything but a strong anti-Putin bias that blinds to any tolerance in analysis can see where his accusation came from.
Nik wrote: "As any country Ukraine can do wrong, but in no world was an invasion justified"An interesting question is, what do you see is necessary to justify a war? Carrying out an act of war is the same as being at war.
It’s sheer russian propaganda. nazis played no role in maidan and all those swastikas and whatever is totally made up. You’ve never been to Ukraine, judging about it from russian propaganda puts you the farthest from reality you can get. But believe what you like. Those who are familiar with reality understand what happens.If anything putler, responsible for few hundred k dead and for execution of scores of Ukrainians just for what they are, is fast approaching hitler’s rank.
PK, The Budapest Memorandum was null and void the moment the CIA helped instigate a coup against the democratically elected Ukrainian pro-Russian Government in 2014, and then began setting up bases in Eastern Ukraine to undermine Russian national security.
These are incontrovertible facts, and I've supplied links from impeccable sources, on other threads, to prove it.
The above is why Russia annexed Crimea. It was tit for tat.
High-ranking sources from both sides, plus well-informed impartial observers like Gerhard Schroder, have confirmed Zelensky and Putin were ready to begin tentative peace talks in March 2022. Biden and Boris scuppered them. They see this war as a way to weaken Russia, not help Ukraine.
Again, I've posted sources on other threads to prove this.
To some extent, I take your point about democracy. The Russian elections are a sham. Ours are only a partial sham. A choice between 2 cheeks of the same bottom. Can you really imagine the modern British media or political establishment sitting idly by if a new political party or radical leader, offering genuine change, posed a threat to their rule? I don't think so.
You mock Trump and Orban, but both were elected in the type of democratic elections you championed in your post.
Look at how the US establishment treated Trump. They threw their toys out the pram, sought to undermine him and painted a completely false picture of everything he did from day one. He might be uncouth and confrontational but, in terms of policy, he is a moderate American politician, whose only crime was preventing the inauguration of HRC, the 'Chosen One'.
Orban is the finest statesman of our age, a man who sees the big picture and makes the right calls on major issues. The Biden regime has tried unsuccessfully to undermine him too because he stands up for Hungary's own interests, which are sometimes contrary to their own.
Finally, ask yourself this...
If the boot was on the other foot, would the US allow Russia or China to cultivate and arm an ally on the US's border? Cuba 1962 gives you the answer to that.
These are incontrovertible facts, and I've supplied links from impeccable sources, on other threads, to prove it.
The above is why Russia annexed Crimea. It was tit for tat.
High-ranking sources from both sides, plus well-informed impartial observers like Gerhard Schroder, have confirmed Zelensky and Putin were ready to begin tentative peace talks in March 2022. Biden and Boris scuppered them. They see this war as a way to weaken Russia, not help Ukraine.
Again, I've posted sources on other threads to prove this.
To some extent, I take your point about democracy. The Russian elections are a sham. Ours are only a partial sham. A choice between 2 cheeks of the same bottom. Can you really imagine the modern British media or political establishment sitting idly by if a new political party or radical leader, offering genuine change, posed a threat to their rule? I don't think so.
You mock Trump and Orban, but both were elected in the type of democratic elections you championed in your post.
Look at how the US establishment treated Trump. They threw their toys out the pram, sought to undermine him and painted a completely false picture of everything he did from day one. He might be uncouth and confrontational but, in terms of policy, he is a moderate American politician, whose only crime was preventing the inauguration of HRC, the 'Chosen One'.
Orban is the finest statesman of our age, a man who sees the big picture and makes the right calls on major issues. The Biden regime has tried unsuccessfully to undermine him too because he stands up for Hungary's own interests, which are sometimes contrary to their own.
Finally, ask yourself this...
If the boot was on the other foot, would the US allow Russia or China to cultivate and arm an ally on the US's border? Cuba 1962 gives you the answer to that.
Mike is right about Clinton, Bush, Obama and the wretch Biden being liars.
Trump bucked the trend. He told (and tells) the truth. He's the finest US President since JFK.
Trump bucked the trend. He told (and tells) the truth. He's the finest US President since JFK.
Nik wrote: "It’s sheer russian propaganda. nazis played no role in maidan and all those swastikas and whatever is totally made up. You’ve never been to Ukraine, judging about it from russian propaganda puts yo..."What I saw were video clips from a UK TV service, including a detailed account of the Azov regiment. Whether I have been to Ukraine is irrelevant. Either the news clips made by UK teams were all "Russian propaganda", or they were real. Why UK news teams would make up news to favour the Russians 8 years in the future eludes me, because you are claiming not only were they liars, but they were psychic.
Mike wrote: "I saw "wicked" Nuland's admission, "we spent $5 billion dollars to destabilize Ukraine." I know military aged men are forced to fight not theirs war. I know Zelensky's regime bought themselves a fe..."It so happens that I know Ukraine and visit there regularly, so I don't need press to judge about it. If anything it was people enthusiasm to defend their homeland that saved Ukraine. No one forced them although many tried to discourage, You wanna lump everything you think is wrong about the world into one heap and project on events you know nothing about - feel free. In the end you undermine your own system (if indeed you are not some alexander) and disseminate russian falsehoods.
Beau wrote: "PK, The Budapest Memorandum was null and void the moment the CIA helped instigate a coup against the democratically elected Ukrainian pro-Russian Government in 2014, and then began setting up bases..."Yeah, yeah "incontrovertible facts", "impeccable sources", but in reality - nothing at all. Bombastic words prove nothing. You don't like your partial sham democracy - you can try russian. They'll embrace you. Maybe you'll find "traditional western values" there that you care mention every time
Ian wrote: "....What I saw were video clips from a UK TV service..."Or maybe you'd read in "our newspapers"? I can find a neo nazi in each and every country in the world, make a tv clip about it and yell that all his/her countrymen are like this.
Dave Cameron phrased it well:“A lie is around the world before the truth can get its boots on.”
“Don’t listen to Putin’s lies about Ukraine,” Cameron continued. “It is a free democracy that wants to be an independent sovereign country, that wants to be our ally and our friend, and we should be standing by our friends, because the world will be watching if we don’t.”
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/uk-s-came...
As a forewarning - keep insisting Ukrainians are nazis and stuff like that and I'll have to take measures, as I find it deeply personally insultive
Mike wrote: "Did Russia lie about the war as well?..."Of course, it lied and keeps lying. Before the war, it denied it had any intention to start one and now they don't even call it a war, but a special military operation. The "war", in their media, they fight with NATO with an amazing result of "0" NATO casualties vs few hundred thousand russian
Beau wrote, 'Trump was the greatest president since JFK.'By that yardstick al Capone was the greatest non-president.
Opinions can be mirrors of who we are. There is a lot of that about here.
Mike wrote: "Nik wrote: "In the end you undermine your own system (if indeed you are not some alexander) and disseminate russian falsehoods."Did Russia lie about the war as well? The BBC’s Ros Atkins cited Az..."
Ten to twenty per cent of a regiment would equate to about three hundred men. I should think that might not be unexpected in any Eastern European country where communism was the rule for generations. I wouldn't be surprised if that were true in Germany and even more so in Hungary. Extreme regimes nurture extreme views of all shades. The irony is that Putin himself who despises collegiate power could be held up as a prime example of Nazi tendencies.
Mike wrote: "P.K. wrote: How does the US finance Russia?There were 2,000 foreign corps in Russia, many of which have stayed there."
What evidence do you have for this, Mike? And how does that justify your statement that the US finances Russia?
PK, although I do my best to remain in prime physical condition (and do quite a good job), I'm not vain enough to liken myself to the 6'3, 230lb big guy - possibly the most impressive physical specimen in US presidential history.
On balance, I now side with Nik on the nazi question. I've never thought that Ukraine was full of nazis but I did think that Azov, comparatively small though it is, had a disproportionate amount of influence on the Ukrainian power base.
However, as Ian's insightful Aljaeera link shows, and PK observes, the number of nazis WITHIN Azov is small, so Ian has actually defeated his own argument.
Ian's link is also insightful at showing how the Western MSM/ social media companies bend their own rules to suit their purposes.
I urge group members to ponder this, when considering ALL political issues.
On balance, I now side with Nik on the nazi question. I've never thought that Ukraine was full of nazis but I did think that Azov, comparatively small though it is, had a disproportionate amount of influence on the Ukrainian power base.
However, as Ian's insightful Aljaeera link shows, and PK observes, the number of nazis WITHIN Azov is small, so Ian has actually defeated his own argument.
Ian's link is also insightful at showing how the Western MSM/ social media companies bend their own rules to suit their purposes.
I urge group members to ponder this, when considering ALL political issues.
Replying to the original question of how to defeat your enemy's country without fighting a war, Barbara said: "Divide them along any lines of difference - race, gender, age, financial status and use the media to keep those differences in the forefront.
Corrupt the culture with junk media and celebrity worship
Draw away industries, especially essential ones, with cheap labor
Overwhelm the country with non-citizens"
Thanks for answering the question, and I agree. And maybe add the poisoning of your opponent's population with drugs?
P.K. wrote: "....The irony is that Putin himself who despises collegiate power could be held up as a prime example of Nazi tendencies...."Looks like not-your-Boris (surprise, I know :)) thinks so:
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/german-de...
And your king:
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSK...
Yes, Nik. That sort of poison comes with different names but it tastes the same.
Can't agree with you on this, Nik, PK, Charlie and the other guy. There's no comparison to be made between Putin and Hitler. Comparing them is, at best, very lazy.
Though he stands no nonsense, the former seeks security, the latter sought conquest. And the former shares none of the latter's warped beliefs about racial superiority, either. The former has also been in power long enough for us to know that he's not inclined to commit the type of atrocities associated with the latter.
Also, before judging Russia against the West, bear in mind that Russia has no history of democracy. Bar the brief period of chaos in the early 90s, you had communist dictators and then the tsars.
That by itself doesn't make them any better or worse than us. Just different. Feelings of superiority can be dangerous. They can lead to irrational judgements over events and worse.
Though he stands no nonsense, the former seeks security, the latter sought conquest. And the former shares none of the latter's warped beliefs about racial superiority, either. The former has also been in power long enough for us to know that he's not inclined to commit the type of atrocities associated with the latter.
Also, before judging Russia against the West, bear in mind that Russia has no history of democracy. Bar the brief period of chaos in the early 90s, you had communist dictators and then the tsars.
That by itself doesn't make them any better or worse than us. Just different. Feelings of superiority can be dangerous. They can lead to irrational judgements over events and worse.
We don’t have to agree, but even for you, did russia strike you as insecure at any stage? It’s about conquest 150%. If anything, Charles hardly cares about putler to be biased
And by the way, a few days in russia would suffice to feel how racially sensitive (I’m making an extra mile to put it mildly) those bastards are
Here we disagree, Nik. I think Russia does feel insecure, at least to some extent. It is a land that has been invaded time and again. It is surrounded by NATO bases, and the US government has been doing what it can to undermine Russia since the revolution. Think of the ridiculous antics of a Senator McCarthy against "communists"; think of the attitude of the US towards Cuba. RTeaga openly boasted he would bring the USSR down, and he did. Russia has reasons to question its security.I am not sure about the racial sensitivity. It is certainly there, but in part it may arise from fear of various groups wanting to break away. As for it being "about conquest", leaving aside pre-1950s, which are historical, and Ukraine, which we have been through in other threads, there is no evidence I can see that Russia wants to conquer anyone, although it does want to protect Russians.
There was an interesting chap interviewed in that Simon Reeve travel programme I mentioned on one of the threads. He was a Russian francophile, living in Crimea.
His take was that Russia always needs a strong leader because when it doesn't have one it tends to be easy prey for hostile nations and cedes territory.
His take was that Russia always needs a strong leader because when it doesn't have one it tends to be easy prey for hostile nations and cedes territory.
Funny about leaving aside pre -50ies, because last time russia was invaded was in 41, by itself invading Poland and Finland a couple of years before. Past 50-ies Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Georgia, Moldova - no evidence?I was under impression Castro brothers ruled pretty long whatever “evil” States threw at them
France/England were invading each other for centuries, but I don’t see anything similar on their part…
Perhaps both sides of the argument here are right. There are reasons, mostly historical, for Russia to feel insecure and one could argue that annexing Crimea and Ukraine was to mitigate that insecurity. But such illegality and belligerence doesn't make it right.And, as Beau keeps mentioning, trying to install intercontinental ballistic missiles on Cuba was not the act of a pacifist nation. Several times US leaders have invited Russia to join NATO and each time the suggestion has been put down. If people here, in the safety of our little nests, think that Putin wouldn't want Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Moldova too if they got Ukraine then visit those countries and feel how they feel.
I was in Russia when it was still a communist country. I know how steeped in their beliefs Putin's generation are. And I wouldn't be happy with a black face there either. But the younger Russians are bright and lovely, that's why so many of them fled to the West when Put invaded Ukraine.
PS to the above. I had a novel ready to publish which involved Russia and Russian character but the Ukraine conflict put it out-of-date. So I don't thank Putin for that either.
Regarding Cuba, in the negotations that followed, the US had to remove similar missiles from Turkey that were aimed at Russia and to agree not to undertake an invasion of Cuba, directly or similar to the Bay of Pigs disaster. Those US acts were not the acts of a pacifist nation either. As for joining NATO,l it is unclear there ever was a genuine offer from the West. After all, if Russia joined, what would NATO do?
P.K. wrote: "PS to the above. I had a novel ready to publish which involved Russia and Russian character but the Ukraine conflict put it out-of-date. So I don't thank Putin for that either."For what it is worth, I had a novel in ransit to a publisher which made the specific plot point that the USSR collapsed in 2017. It actually collapsed while the novel was in transit. Not a success.
PK, we're beginning to agree on things on this thread :)
Obviously, Russia isn't a pacifist nation. But please don't tell me you think the US and UK are ones?
Pacifism might be an admirable philosophy but one doesn't go building empires or becoming the world's policeman on the back of it.
I gather 900k people have left Russia since this conflict began, although some have since returned. Meanwhile, over 6.5 million have left Ukraine. I'm not blaming them. As you said, writing from the comfort of the English shires, who are we to judge them? But still, let's get things in perspective instead of parroting The Times and BBC narratives.
Re the smaller nations bordering Russia, my impression is that those nations are split in their outlook. Workers tend to look towards Russia, the middle class towards the West.
And with their pro-Western political leaders' recent jingoistic sabre rattling towards Russia, I'm not surprised that the pro-Western elements are currently feeling a little bit nervous.
Obviously, Russia isn't a pacifist nation. But please don't tell me you think the US and UK are ones?
Pacifism might be an admirable philosophy but one doesn't go building empires or becoming the world's policeman on the back of it.
I gather 900k people have left Russia since this conflict began, although some have since returned. Meanwhile, over 6.5 million have left Ukraine. I'm not blaming them. As you said, writing from the comfort of the English shires, who are we to judge them? But still, let's get things in perspective instead of parroting The Times and BBC narratives.
Re the smaller nations bordering Russia, my impression is that those nations are split in their outlook. Workers tend to look towards Russia, the middle class towards the West.
And with their pro-Western political leaders' recent jingoistic sabre rattling towards Russia, I'm not surprised that the pro-Western elements are currently feeling a little bit nervous.
US was never imperialistic, UK waived imperialism, russia revived it. Smaller nations know russia all too well to look towards it. Not random they ran to NATO the moment they could. Workers and others alike. Maybe some ethnic russian look towards russia, as there is strong antirussian sentiment, but they are free to leave.
To say the US was never imperialistic is in a sense true but misleading. It had a period of acquisition, as per Texas, California, etc. There are also unincorporated territories such as Puerto Rico and American Samoa. But the US also acts more like the Ferengi in Star Trek; they have used their military to advance their offshore corporate ownership, such as Chilean copper and central America bananas.Most of the problems we associate with Russia arise from the breakup of the USSR. The Constitution of the USSR had procedures for countries leaving the USSR, which included oblasts, and even parts of oblasts, having elections to determine whose country they lived in, i.e. to define the borders by vote. Yeltsin, Kravchuk, etc totally ignored the constitution and set up their own boundaries, in agreements where they kept power for themselves. In the USSR many Russians went to different places within the Union and some found themselves in the wrong place after the breakup. By and large they tried to make do with how things were, but eventually that led to frictions. Had the constitution been followed, there would be no excuse for the various messes that resulted.
Each time you pretend to be an expert in USSR constitution you make me smile 😊
I nefver pretended to be an expert - merely aware that it existed. But if it makes you smile, why not really smile:https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991-2/...
Your russian friends lead you the wrong path. The constitution is irrelevant. No one seceded. USSR was dissolved and ceased to exist. However, Baltic states went independent even earlier
