NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
"Which can pigs fly" is not an english sentence, I think you meant "which pigs can fly", and the answer is none. We can be confident of that because they don't have any organs that would be tasked with flying ability.
I'd argue that all pigs can fly, with the definition of "travel by air". Just put them on a plane. What they cannot do is fly on their own power, and they probably also can't fly with the meaning of "controlling an airplane".
I'd also argue that zeo is trolling you guys, and that talking to him is utterly pointless.
This is a better analysis of Russia economy, I have a fair amount of economic history background.
Sanctions are meant to be extremely powerful, and extremely effective. You guys probably forgot or didn't know, George Soros and other Fx traders alone caused the collapsed of multiple Asian currencies and economy to negative growth in 1997 financial crisis.
These slow cracks aren't meant to be slow cracks. Russia could be entering stagflation, but so is Germany.
Economy downturn isn't a crisis. Crisis of faith is how an economy collapses, and like the video said, Russia still got huge amount of tools, being the totalitarian state.
Totalitarian states always collapse when you least expect it. Not a single fall of a dictator has been predictable.
Even Saddam Hussein fell... Much faster than expected. Usually, it's just that regime collapses are feedback loops, so when the parameters are right, the collapse takes days or hours. And it's very different from economic collapse, so being able to maintain a war economy just doesn't save the dictator from this feedback loop, only the perceived risk on the life of those disagreeing does. "Can he kill me or my family before we can stop him" is the only question that matters.
The main difference between Ukraine and Russia, is that Zelensky can visit his troops on the front line and trust them. Putin can't, not because he is a coward (he is...) but because he'd just get murdered by his troops.
Not always, and plenty are long enduring and even evolve into something else. See NK, China for example. Even Taiwan was under an extremely fascist era for quite a long time. An economics collapse would have likely lead to a regime change, even then it's not guaranteed.
True, but this is based on the survival bias, those are exceptions rather than the rule. The list of toppled dictatorships in the last 70 years is very long and they had all in common that they looked just as strongly installed as Putin is today. NK is its own world. Russians do have plenty of freedom today compared to soviet time as well. China also managed to juggle between freedom and total control.
The play is usually on the security vs freedom. If you don't have a threat, it's hard to convince the population to let freedom go. Hence NATO has to be a threat for Russia.
The question for us europeans is not if and when Putin falls, but rather once he falls, is he replaced by the next dictator or does Russians chose at that point to deal with corruption
Yes but reality is sanctions and cutting off from SWIFT is meant to be equal to an economics nuke.
It didn't do enough to cause a collapse, and gave Russia enough time to transition while being supported by China etc.
And they haven't opened up their full suite of market control policies. Being in stagnation is bad, but it's not like germany isn't already in stagnation.
I agree with your last point though. Putin had been in power for so very long. But I wouldn't bet it on "freedom" which is not necessarily the top concerns for russians.
Good economic prospect and shared identity are probably even more important going ahead.
"Which can pigs fly" is not an english sentence, I think you meant "which pigs can fly", and the answer is none. We can be confident of that because they don't have any organs that would be tasked with flying ability.
I'd argue that all pigs can fly, with the definition of "travel by air". Just put them on a plane. What they cannot do is fly on their own power, and they probably also can't fly with the meaning of "controlling an airplane".
I'd also argue that zeo is trolling you guys, and that talking to him is utterly pointless.
Indeed, it's very obvious how its just continuously refusing to engage with or acknowledge very straight-forward things. I'd had much more respect for someone willing to own it more clearly, without all the skirting and dodging around it
(In my later years ive kinda ended up chalking it down to the impressive skill the human brain has to completely shut down certain faculties whenever its a question of true in/out-group mentality. Basic facts fly out the window when its a matter of human identity....stuff)
On November 20 2025 23:37 zeo wrote: The November exchange of bodies between Kiev and Moscow took place today
KYIV, Nov 20 (Reuters) - Ukraine and Russia have carried out a new exchange of bodies of dead soldiers, Ukrainian officials and Russian state media said on Thursday. Ukraine said it received 1,000 bodies and Russian state news agency TASS quoted an unidentified source as saying Moscow got back 30.
15.367 bodies of UKR soldiers exchanged for 473 bodies of RUS soldiers over the last year at a ratio of 32,48 to 1
Did you get a chance to read about fascism? Are you now pro fascist? Or was there something about Putins regime that you think doesn’t fit the definition?
Also, what are the advantages of joining Russias sphere of influence over the eu? Why would you rather be Belarus than Poland?
The whole 'everyone I don't like is a fascist' schtick is only cute in very niche online communities. Anyone from the general public coming into contact with you like this would automatically disregard your opinion and ridicule you. Adding a top 10 list of 'fascist qualities' you pulled from TikTok doesn't help you much, you could say the Vatican is a fascist state if you grasp at straws long enough.
That said, the political system currently in Russia is in essence its own thing. It has its positives, and it has its deep negatives like every other political system that has ever existed. If a new term were to be coined called Putinism sure why not, it would be that. But saying its fascism makes you look like a moron, and it makes normal people sympathys more with the opposite of whatever you stand for. My 2 cents.
As for your last sentence. Over the last few years, would you rather be in Belarus or Ukraine? However much you might soapbox it most of you would pick Belarus
I’m really confused to why you support a fascist and think fascism is an insult. Like I could see why a leftist would see it as an insult or a liberal , but it makes no sense for you.
And that’s not a list from TikTok, it’s the academic definition.
Keene State Collage, I'm crying hahaha. Academic definition 🤣
What do you think separates Putinism and Fascism? What makes Russia not a fascist country?
Why are you asking me? I cant pull out a powerpoint slide from a liberal arts community collage for the academic definition. Oh, this was good. Havent laughed that hard in a while, thanks billy
On November 20 2025 14:55 ETisME wrote: https://youtu.be/YRuYb3H3mvA This is a better analysis of Russia economy, I have a fair amount of economic history background.
Sanctions are meant to be extremely powerful, and extremely effective. You guys probably forgot or didn't know, George Soros and other Fx traders alone caused the collapsed of multiple Asian currencies and economy to negative growth in 1997 financial crisis.
These slow cracks aren't meant to be slow cracks. Russia could be entering stagflation, but so is Germany.
Economy downturn isn't a crisis. Crisis of faith is how an economy collapses, and like the video said, Russia still got huge amount of tools, being the totalitarian state.
Totalitarian states always collapse when you least expect it. Not a single fall of a dictator has been predictable.
Even Saddam Hussein fell... Much faster than expected. Usually, it's just that regime collapses are feedback loops, so when the parameters are right, the collapse takes days or hours. And it's very different from economic collapse, so being able to maintain a war economy just doesn't save the dictator from this feedback loop, only the perceived risk on the life of those disagreeing does. "Can he kill me or my family before we can stop him" is the only question that matters.
The main difference between Ukraine and Russia, is that Zelensky can visit his troops on the front line and trust them. Putin can't, not because he is a coward (he is...) but because he'd just get murdered by his troops.
Not always, and plenty are long enduring and even evolve into something else. See NK, China for example. Even Taiwan was under an extremely fascist era for quite a long time. An economics collapse would have likely lead to a regime change, even then it's not guaranteed.
True, but this is based on the survival bias, those are exceptions rather than the rule. The list of toppled dictatorships in the last 70 years is very long and they had all in common that they looked just as strongly installed as Putin is today. NK is its own world. Russians do have plenty of freedom today compared to soviet time as well. China also managed to juggle between freedom and total control.
The play is usually on the security vs freedom. If you don't have a threat, it's hard to convince the population to let freedom go. Hence NATO has to be a threat for Russia.
The question for us europeans is not if and when Putin falls, but rather once he falls, is he replaced by the next dictator or does Russians chose at that point to deal with corruption
Yes but reality is sanctions and cutting off from SWIFT is meant to be equal to an economics nuke.
It didn't do enough to cause a collapse, and gave Russia enough time to transition while being supported by China etc.
And they haven't opened up their full suite of market control policies. Being in stagnation is bad, but it's not like germany isn't already in stagnation.
I agree with your last point though. Putin had been in power for so very long. But I wouldn't bet it on "freedom" which is not necessarily the top concerns for russians.
Good economic prospect and shared identity are probably even more important going ahead.
Yup, freedom isn't even a priority to Americans. I think placed in front of a choice, even in Europe you have at least 30% of the population that would put security in front of freedom.
Economic sanctions have their limit. They hurt only if you are expected to operate at a profit. Russian is self sufficient enough to be able to produce shells and explosives. Electronics are small enough to be able to come from black market.
Their seems to be no way out of this circle of death. You have only one solution which has 0% chance happening which is the division off the whole Russian in smaller states. Corruption hates tiny ponds.
On November 21 2025 05:21 sertas wrote: This is proof that you have to be mentally retarded to support russia, thanks zeo for confirming this, I thought you could have at least average iq and support russia but now I know. Don't know why people write so much to mentally handicapped people, seems like a waste
He seems to forget he is kept here for no reasons, at this point he might as well be gone from the discussion, if we are going to argue about definitions of generally accepted words, let not do it with fascists, which are known to do that as step 1 of their idiotology.
On November 20 2025 17:24 spets1 wrote: He does not "maintain that Putin's goal is not regime change". Wtf you on about. If he ever said that it was put out of context.
"Regarding regime change, Mearsheimer states that Putin sought a shift in Ukraine's leadership away from the post-2014 government, which he viewed as hostile and Western-installed. He describes this as a limited goal: replacing the regime in Kyiv with one more neutral or pro-Russian to neutralize the NATO threat, without intending full occupation or territorial conquest. For instance, he notes that no Russian leader would tolerate a Western-aligned government in Ukraine, as it would threaten Russia's strategic buffer zone, and that Putin's pushback was a direct reaction to the West "installing" such a regime after the Euromaidan events."
He even recently said, like couple days ago that Putin wants a regime change but he won't get it the current way things are looking.
So can we put that argument to bed? Can you accept that you were wrong? Or is that impossible for you?
So anything else he is wrong about?
Okay, so he changed his mind after a few years? That hardly exonerates him. It was the stated goal from the very beginning. Also, toppling the government, installing a puppet (Viktor Medvedchuk), controlling Ukraine's internal and foreign policy (the laws, size of the military, alliances) are not "a limited goal". It's complete domination.
I'm still waiting for you to address my counterarguments regarding the NATO threat nonsense.
From "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault?" (University of Chicago Lecture Transcript, September 25, 2015) In this talk, Mearsheimer elaborates on Putin's limited aims post-2014, emphasizing the need to reverse the pro-Western shift in Kyiv. "The Russians made it clear that they were not going to tolerate a pro-Western government in Kyiv... Putin's goal is to make sure that Ukraine does not become a de facto member of NATO..."
So Mersheimer has since 2015 at least has acknowledged that Putin's goal is to change regime in Ukraine since the pro western coup. Wtf are you on about?
Here are John Mearsheimer’s clearest direct quotes (2014–2025) explaining why Putin is fundamentally and implacably opposed to Ukraine joining NATO. He repeats the same core arguments in almost every major appearance.
Strategic location and survival-level threat “Ukraine is a vital strategic interest for Russia… If Ukraine becomes a member of NATO, NATO forces are right on Russia’s doorstep… No Russian leader—Putin, Stalin, Brezhnev, whoever—would tolerate that.” (University of Chicago lecture, September 25, 2015)
“Great powers are always sensitive to potential threats near their home territory… Putting NATO forces on Russia’s border with Ukraine would be an existential threat to Russia.” (Foreign Affairs, “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault,” September/October 2014)
Historical buffer zone / loss of strategic depth “From the Russian perspective, Ukraine is the most valuable piece of real estate in Eurasia after Russia itself… If you control Ukraine, you have enormous strategic depth… If you lose Ukraine, you lose most of your strategic depth.” (King’s Politics webinar, February 15, 2022 – the video you originally asked about)
No great power would ever accept this “Imagine the outrage in Washington if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico in it… No American leader would tolerate that.” (Repeated in dozens of talks; verbatim version from The New Yorker interview, March 1, 2022)
“The United States does not tolerate peer competitors in the Western Hemisphere… Russia does not tolerate peer competitors on its borders.” (Foreign Affairs, 2014)
NATO membership is a bright red line “The Russians have been screaming at the top of their lungs since April 2008 that Ukraine in NATO is absolutely unacceptable… It crosses a bright red line.” (King’s Politics webinar, February 15, 2022)
Even a de-facto NATO ally is unacceptable “Even if Ukraine never formally joins NATO, if it becomes a de facto member—armed to the teeth with Western weapons and integrated into the Western military command structure—Russia will view that as an existential threat.” (Interview with Glenn Diesen, November 2023; also repeated in 2024–2025 talks)
Most recent concise version (2024–2025) “For Russia, Ukraine in NATO is like a loaded pistol pointed at Russia’s head. No Russian leader will ever accept that—full stop.” (Repeated in multiple 2024–2025 interviews, e.g., with Judge Napolitano, Lex Fridman, and the Durban conference, June 2024)
1. Putin seems to be tolerating Finland in NATO easily enough. 2. Ukraine showed no interest in joining a defensive alliance against Russia before Russia started annexing bits of it. If you don’t want places joining defensive alliances then stop attacking them. 3. Canada is in a defensive alliance with countries across the ocean that would be forced to come to her aid if the US attacked her. The hypothetical you insist America would never allow already exists. 4. The US would tolerate Canada joining more alliances, though it would try to make a better offer if it didn’t like a new partner. 5. Invading places isn’t a better offer. 6. It’s not up to Putin/Russia. Ukraine has sovereignty. You don’t have to approve of your ex’s new boyfriend, it’s not up to you, you’re not involved, go to therapy.
If Russia’s relationship with Ukraine is as important as you insist then any normal person would conclude that Russia should treat Ukraine with kindness, generosity, and respect. Instead they’re attacking. Even if we accept all your arguments about strategic depth (somehow the largest nation on earth by far needs more buffer land) your conclusion is completely wrong. If you assess a relationship and decide that it’s really important to you then you treat the person well, you don’t kill their dog. Russia turned a friendship into a hostage situation and is now insisting that it is victimized by the resistance and escape attempts.
On November 20 2025 17:24 spets1 wrote: He does not "maintain that Putin's goal is not regime change". Wtf you on about. If he ever said that it was put out of context.
"Regarding regime change, Mearsheimer states that Putin sought a shift in Ukraine's leadership away from the post-2014 government, which he viewed as hostile and Western-installed. He describes this as a limited goal: replacing the regime in Kyiv with one more neutral or pro-Russian to neutralize the NATO threat, without intending full occupation or territorial conquest. For instance, he notes that no Russian leader would tolerate a Western-aligned government in Ukraine, as it would threaten Russia's strategic buffer zone, and that Putin's pushback was a direct reaction to the West "installing" such a regime after the Euromaidan events."
He even recently said, like couple days ago that Putin wants a regime change but he won't get it the current way things are looking.
So can we put that argument to bed? Can you accept that you were wrong? Or is that impossible for you?
So anything else he is wrong about?
Okay, so he changed his mind after a few years? That hardly exonerates him. It was the stated goal from the very beginning. Also, toppling the government, installing a puppet (Viktor Medvedchuk), controlling Ukraine's internal and foreign policy (the laws, size of the military, alliances) are not "a limited goal". It's complete domination.
I'm still waiting for you to address my counterarguments regarding the NATO threat nonsense.
From "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault?" (University of Chicago Lecture Transcript, September 25, 2015) In this talk, Mearsheimer elaborates on Putin's limited aims post-2014, emphasizing the need to reverse the pro-Western shift in Kyiv. "The Russians made it clear that they were not going to tolerate a pro-Western government in Kyiv... Putin's goal is to make sure that Ukraine does not become a de facto member of NATO..."
So Mersheimer has since 2015 at least has acknowledged that Putin's goal is to change regime in Ukraine since the pro western coup. Wtf are you on about?
There was no coup. If you disagree, define what a coup is and then explain how the president fleeing the country after he massacred peaceful protesters being removed from power through the appropriate legal process is a coup.
On November 21 2025 16:49 spets1 wrote: Here is Mersheimers NATO a red line points :
Here are John Mearsheimer’s clearest direct quotes (2014–2025) explaining why Putin is fundamentally and implacably opposed to Ukraine joining NATO. He repeats the same core arguments in almost every major appearance.
Strategic location and survival-level threat “Ukraine is a vital strategic interest for Russia… If Ukraine becomes a member of NATO, NATO forces are right on Russia’s doorstep… No Russian leader—Putin, Stalin, Brezhnev, whoever—would tolerate that.” (University of Chicago lecture, September 25, 2015)
“Great powers are always sensitive to potential threats near their home territory… Putting NATO forces on Russia’s border with Ukraine would be an existential threat to Russia.” (Foreign Affairs, “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault,” September/October 2014)
Historical buffer zone / loss of strategic depth “From the Russian perspective, Ukraine is the most valuable piece of real estate in Eurasia after Russia itself… If you control Ukraine, you have enormous strategic depth… If you lose Ukraine, you lose most of your strategic depth.” (King’s Politics webinar, February 15, 2022 – the video you originally asked about)
No great power would ever accept this “Imagine the outrage in Washington if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico in it… No American leader would tolerate that.” (Repeated in dozens of talks; verbatim version from The New Yorker interview, March 1, 2022)
“The United States does not tolerate peer competitors in the Western Hemisphere… Russia does not tolerate peer competitors on its borders.” (Foreign Affairs, 2014)
NATO membership is a bright red line “The Russians have been screaming at the top of their lungs since April 2008 that Ukraine in NATO is absolutely unacceptable… It crosses a bright red line.” (King’s Politics webinar, February 15, 2022)
Even a de-facto NATO ally is unacceptable “Even if Ukraine never formally joins NATO, if it becomes a de facto member—armed to the teeth with Western weapons and integrated into the Western military command structure—Russia will view that as an existential threat.” (Interview with Glenn Diesen, November 2023; also repeated in 2024–2025 talks)
Most recent concise version (2024–2025) “For Russia, Ukraine in NATO is like a loaded pistol pointed at Russia’s head. No Russian leader will ever accept that—full stop.” (Repeated in multiple 2024–2025 interviews, e.g., with Judge Napolitano, Lex Fridman, and the Durban conference, June 2024)
I already addressed all of those points in my earlier posts about NATO expansion/threat. Are you genuinely incapable of engaging with counterarguments? Is mindlessly copy-pasting old talking points all you can do?
On November 21 2025 16:59 KwarK wrote: 1. Putin seems to be tolerating Finland in NATO easily enough. 2. Ukraine showed no interest in joining a defensive alliance against Russia before Russia started annexing bits of it. If you don’t want places joining defensive alliances then stop attacking them. 3. Canada is in a defensive alliance with countries across the ocean that would be forced to come to her aid if the US attacked her. The hypothetical you insist America would never allow already exists. 4. The US would tolerate Canada joining more alliances, though it would try to make a better offer if it didn’t like a new partner. 5. Invading places isn’t a better offer. 6. It’s not up to Putin/Russia. Ukraine has sovereignty. You don’t have to approve of your ex’s new boyfriend, it’s not up to you, you’re not involved, go to therapy.
If Russia’s relationship with Ukraine is as important as you insist then any normal person would conclude that Russia should treat Ukraine with kindness, generosity, and respect. Instead they’re attacking. Even if we accept all your arguments about strategic depth (somehow the largest nation on earth by far needs more buffer land) your conclusion is completely wrong. If you assess a relationship and decide that it’s really important to you then you treat the person well, you don’t kill their dog. Russia turned a friendship into a hostage situation and is now insisting that it is victimized by the resistance and escape attempts.
1. Finland “Finland is a red herring. It adds 1,300 km of border, yes, but it is forested, sparsely populated, and does not give NATO the ability to cut Russia’s centre of gravity in half in 48 hours. Ukraine is flat tank country 400 km from Moscow and contains Russia’s second-largest city in cultural and industrial terms (Kharkiv). Geography is not symmetrical. Any Russian leader would trade Finland joining NATO ten times over to keep Ukraine out.”
2. Ukraine had no interest before Russia started annexing bits “Completely backwards causation. The West began the active drive to pull Ukraine westward in 2008 at the Bucharest Summit when it declared that Ukraine would become a member of NATO. That is what triggered the 2014 crisis, which triggered the regime change in Kyiv, which triggered Russia’s reaction. The sequence is NATO expansion → colour revolution → Russian pushback. You have it exactly in reverse.” 3–4. Canada/Mexico analogy “If China or Russia built a military alliance and moved to include Mexico and Canada, the United States would never accept it – Monroe Doctrine 101. We are doing precisely what we would never tolerate in our own hemisphere. The fact that Canada is already in NATO is irrelevant; NATO was built when the only threat was the Soviet Union and the U.S. was the overwhelmingly dominant power. Try to add Mexico to a Chinese-led military alliance today and watch what happens.”
5. Invading isn’t a better offer “International politics is not a dating service. Great powers use coercion when vital interests are at stake. The United States invaded Iraq, bombed Serbia, droned Libya – all to prevent unfavourable outcomes. Russia is doing the same. You may hate the means, but pretending great-power politics runs on kindness is liberal delusion.”
6. Sovereignty and “it’s not up to Putin” “Sovereignty exists only to the extent it can be defended. Tiny countries next to great powers do not have unrestricted Westbindung rights when the great power says its survival is at stake. Ask Finland in 1939, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968. Ukraine is not Switzerland floating in the middle of nowhere; it is the most geopolitically sensitive piece of real estate in Eurasia. Great powers decide the security architecture in their backyard – always have, always will.”
People always seem to think that "kindness" isn't possible, but the only thing preventing it, is themselves. Move out of Ukraine already, Russia. You're making the world a worse place to live for everyone.
On November 20 2025 17:24 spets1 wrote: He does not "maintain that Putin's goal is not regime change". Wtf you on about. If he ever said that it was put out of context.
"Regarding regime change, Mearsheimer states that Putin sought a shift in Ukraine's leadership away from the post-2014 government, which he viewed as hostile and Western-installed. He describes this as a limited goal: replacing the regime in Kyiv with one more neutral or pro-Russian to neutralize the NATO threat, without intending full occupation or territorial conquest. For instance, he notes that no Russian leader would tolerate a Western-aligned government in Ukraine, as it would threaten Russia's strategic buffer zone, and that Putin's pushback was a direct reaction to the West "installing" such a regime after the Euromaidan events."
He even recently said, like couple days ago that Putin wants a regime change but he won't get it the current way things are looking.
So can we put that argument to bed? Can you accept that you were wrong? Or is that impossible for you?
So anything else he is wrong about?
Okay, so he changed his mind after a few years? That hardly exonerates him. It was the stated goal from the very beginning. Also, toppling the government, installing a puppet (Viktor Medvedchuk), controlling Ukraine's internal and foreign policy (the laws, size of the military, alliances) are not "a limited goal". It's complete domination.
I'm still waiting for you to address my counterarguments regarding the NATO threat nonsense.
From "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault?" (University of Chicago Lecture Transcript, September 25, 2015) In this talk, Mearsheimer elaborates on Putin's limited aims post-2014, emphasizing the need to reverse the pro-Western shift in Kyiv. "The Russians made it clear that they were not going to tolerate a pro-Western government in Kyiv... Putin's goal is to make sure that Ukraine does not become a de facto member of NATO..."
So Mersheimer has since 2015 at least has acknowledged that Putin's goal is to change regime in Ukraine since the pro western coup. Wtf are you on about?
There was no coup. If you disagree, define what a coup is and then explain how the president fleeing the country after he massacred peaceful protesters being removed from power through the appropriate legal process is a coup.
On November 21 2025 16:49 spets1 wrote: Here is Mersheimers NATO a red line points :
Here are John Mearsheimer’s clearest direct quotes (2014–2025) explaining why Putin is fundamentally and implacably opposed to Ukraine joining NATO. He repeats the same core arguments in almost every major appearance.
Strategic location and survival-level threat “Ukraine is a vital strategic interest for Russia… If Ukraine becomes a member of NATO, NATO forces are right on Russia’s doorstep… No Russian leader—Putin, Stalin, Brezhnev, whoever—would tolerate that.” (University of Chicago lecture, September 25, 2015)
“Great powers are always sensitive to potential threats near their home territory… Putting NATO forces on Russia’s border with Ukraine would be an existential threat to Russia.” (Foreign Affairs, “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault,” September/October 2014)
Historical buffer zone / loss of strategic depth “From the Russian perspective, Ukraine is the most valuable piece of real estate in Eurasia after Russia itself… If you control Ukraine, you have enormous strategic depth… If you lose Ukraine, you lose most of your strategic depth.” (King’s Politics webinar, February 15, 2022 – the video you originally asked about)
No great power would ever accept this “Imagine the outrage in Washington if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico in it… No American leader would tolerate that.” (Repeated in dozens of talks; verbatim version from The New Yorker interview, March 1, 2022)
“The United States does not tolerate peer competitors in the Western Hemisphere… Russia does not tolerate peer competitors on its borders.” (Foreign Affairs, 2014)
NATO membership is a bright red line “The Russians have been screaming at the top of their lungs since April 2008 that Ukraine in NATO is absolutely unacceptable… It crosses a bright red line.” (King’s Politics webinar, February 15, 2022)
Even a de-facto NATO ally is unacceptable “Even if Ukraine never formally joins NATO, if it becomes a de facto member—armed to the teeth with Western weapons and integrated into the Western military command structure—Russia will view that as an existential threat.” (Interview with Glenn Diesen, November 2023; also repeated in 2024–2025 talks)
Most recent concise version (2024–2025) “For Russia, Ukraine in NATO is like a loaded pistol pointed at Russia’s head. No Russian leader will ever accept that—full stop.” (Repeated in multiple 2024–2025 interviews, e.g., with Judge Napolitano, Lex Fridman, and the Durban conference, June 2024)
I already addressed all of those points in my earlier posts about NATO expansion/threat. Are you genuinely incapable of engaging with counterarguments? Is mindlessly copy-pasting old talking points all you can do?
“You can play with the word ‘coup’ all you want, but here’s how every Russian leader – and most realists – sees it: A democratically elected president (Yanukovych) who had won with 49 % in a vote the OSCE called fair was removed from power not by an election, not by regular impeachment proceedings that followed the constitution, but by street violence after he refused an EU Association Agreement that would have made Ukraine hostile to Russia. When the security forces tried to clear Maidan the normal way, the West screamed ‘massacre’. Yanukovych then signed a EU-brokered power-sharing agreement on 21 February 2014 with the opposition, witnessed by the German, French and Polish foreign ministers. Within hours the radical elements on Maidan rejected the deal, threatened to storm the presidential administration with weapons, and Yanukovych fled for his life. Parliament – under duress from armed groups controlling the streets of Kyiv – then voted to remove him, with many pro-Yanukovych deputies either absent, intimidated, or literally hiding. That is the functional definition of a coup: extra-constitutional removal of a legally elected leader by means of sustained street violence backed by Western powers who immediately recognized the new government and started funding it. You can call it ‘revolution’ if it makes you feel better. From Moscow’s perspective – and from any realist perspective – it was the West using street mobs to overthrow a president who was not sufficiently anti-Russian. That’s why Putin called it a coup on day one, and why no Russian government will ever accept the legitimacy of the post-Maidan order in Kyiv.”
Spets, stop posting AI slop in here or you're gonna get banned.
If you're uncapable of forming your own thoughts, then just don't participate in the discussion. If we wanted to talk to an AI, we could do prompting ourselves, we don't need to be play the broken telephone game through you.
Did the West fully orchestrate this, or did they seize an opportunity to embrace a Eurocentric move (or coup) by its (violent) citizens? Why did they become violent? Don't you think it's in Western interest to do this? Is this a bad thing? Is that naturally antagonistic towards Russia? Only a zero-sum-gamer would see it like that. You see, Russia doesn't have to be a Pariah, vying for its pan-slavistic sadistic power fantasy, it could literally be the richest, most respected country on the planet. However, it literally refuses to do so. And why is that? Every single non-Russian literally had no idea. I'm sure not even the Russians know. I'd say it's like a misplaced form of pride or something, or like some deeply complex daddy issues they still have to collectively come to terms with. Weird country man. Like, full of geniuses, but a lot of the times in a scary kind of way.
A draft of the 28-point peace plan has now been published. Among a lot of nonsense there are two curious points about US providing direct guarantees to Ukraine and European fighter jets stationed in Poland. Given the 'no boots on the ground' point, this can only mean an air-war on Russia in case it invades again.
Hard to believe that either US or Europe would commit to this.
- If Ukraine launches a missile at Moscow or St. Petersburg without cause, the security guarantee will be deemed invalid.
So basically at any point Russians can send a missile, turn it around, say it was Ukrainian and poof, the already flimsy and undefined US Security guarantee is gone. Brilliant.
- Frozen Russian funds are going to be $100 B invested in US businesses rebuilding Gas and Oil infrastructure in Ukraine where US gets 50 % of everything (lol) and 50 % in US/Russia ventures, also, Europeans will give $100 B, basically just because
This is the most sinister part, US gets the frozen funds invested in their ventures to extract energy from Ukraine, they also get 50 % of profits and EU throws in $100 b which seems thrown in as a fuck you.
- All parties involved in this conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and agree not to make any claims or consider any complaints in the future.
All the war crimes, poof, nice one.
- This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by the Peace Council, headed by President Donald J. Trump.
Barf.
As usual, Ukraine gives up their fortified positions in Donetck and Russia gets whatever pieces of Kherson and Zaporizhia they control, plus an international recognition of those.
Just wonderful, and now Donnie gets to rage because no one outside Russians and him likes the deal.
3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighboring countries and NATO will not expand further.
No actual agreement, just an expectation..
9. European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.
so Poland will now be allowed to park their own jets in their own country..?
But on a more serious note, a security agree from US without troops stationed on the ground and consitutional ban from joining Nato is a genuine no-go. The US can not be trusted. Even if Trump somehow intended to follow through on it, you're never more than 4 years away from someone who can just decide they don't want to.
And lastly
The U.S. will receive compensation for the guarantee
This is just greed on another level, and genuine mafia behaviour.
EPT
