Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Sun 30 Nov 02:17
I know this isn’t a popular viewpoint, but I say: thank God for Vladimir Putin. He may be ruthless, but he is intelligent and not impulsive. Without him, we would likely already be in World War III. We may still face that nightmare, but for now, it is his measured responses to increasingly reckless demands from Europe and the UK over Ukraine that have kept it at bay. Even Donald Trump now openly accepts the inevitable—Russia has won.
Since the failed Ukrainian counteroffensive in 2023, the outcome has been clear. Militarily, the war ended then. Yet for reasons that seem less about defence and more about political convenience and corruption, Western leaders and a compliant media insisted on the opposite. At the same time, NATO leaders thumped the table, demanding a “firm response” to Russia while knowing full well that without the United States, NATO lacks the forces or the ammunition for a protracted conflict with a battle-hardened Russia.
America’s attention has moved: to the Middle East, to Venezuela, and ultimately to China. Washington cannot fight effectively on multiple fronts, so responsibility for NATO has drifted back to Europe, whose governments can neither afford nor politically sustain the military budgets required. Stealing Russian assets frozen in European banks? That will backfire. Raising defence spending while cutting domestic programs? That will backfire, too. It’s hard to see Macron, Merz, or Starmer surviving the political cost for long.
So why does NATO keep pushing to prolong the war? Vast sums of public money are being siphoned into the conflict, and through various bait-and-switch schemes, are being presented as unwavering support for Ukraine. Western promises have repeatedly been loud upfront, while actual deliveries have been slow, restricted, or diluted. Russian soldiers report finding Ukrainian units armed with WWII-era rifles. Where, then, is the money going? Corruption.
It’s worth remembering that Russia and Ukraine had the outlines of a peace agreement within a month of the invasion. In late March 2022, Ukraine offered neutrality — no NATO membership and no foreign bases — in exchange for binding security guarantees. Moscow signalled it might accept a framework that didn’t demand total Ukrainian capitulation. It wasn’t a done deal, but diplomacy appeared possible. Then came Bucha. The atrocities hardened Ukrainian attitudes. And in mid-April, Boris Johnson told Zelensky that even if Ukraine was ready to sign, the Western powers were not.
Three and a half years later, with perhaps two million dead, we are left with corrupt politicians still lining their pockets with public money while demanding that more Ukrainians and Russians die for a lost cause.
|
|
