Jump to content

Ukraine-Russia crisis


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, proactive said:

The sheeple are falling for the propaganda that Putin is the bad guy and Zelensky is the good guy. The fact is both sides are being stubborn. Putin should not have gone in and by going in he has played into Zelensky's hands. Putin has been the master manipulator for the last 20 years. He managed to save his client Asad in Syria against both the concerted efforts of the west and ISIS, he managed to gain Crimea and kept the Donbass out of Ukrainian hands. He should have bided his time, taken out the comedian Salisbury style. By going in, he has to either take over Ukraine and risk a Vietnam type situation or take control of only the Russian majority areas but then the west will still keep the sanctions in place. The Ukrainians sense that they have the upper hand by their use of clever propaganda and even the Ukrainian negotiator was interviewed and she said that Ukraine wants complete capitulation of Russia! 

The best Putin can hope for is that the west and Ukraine agree to a referendum in the Russian majority areas if they want to join Russia, he has lost the game to prevent Ukraine not joining NATO, even nations that were neutral like Sweden are now clamouring to join NATO. 

I think the best option for Russia is to split the Ukraine in 2.

The east part of Ukraine to become the buffer state.

The West Ukrainians Putin had no time for.

Looking at NATO, you are not really dealing with a multitude of countries but the USA. 

When Trump was in power, he wanted to disband NATO because it is the US that footed the bill and the rest of the countries were there for the ride.

If EU is going to stay united, it is possible that at least Western Europe will have to create their own armed forces. France is already a nuclear power and Germany has the manufacturing capability to produce armed weaponry,  tanks etc. That would mean European countries will have spend more of their GDP on defence. 

It seems that countries will shift their priorities. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites


While Russian-Ukrainian war is ongoing, let’s take a look at the composition of the Ukrainian government:

“The core decision-making inner circle of Ukrainian President Zelensky is actually based on his circle of friends when he was an actor.

“1. The Chief of Staff of the Presidential Palace, Andre Yemark, is a comedy producer;

“2. The head of the Presidential Administration, Andre Bodin, is a lawyer in the entertainment industry;

“3. The president’s chief policy adviser, Sergey Sheffey, is a comedy writer;

“4. Ivan Bakanov, deputy chairman of the Ukrainian Supreme Intelligence Service, is the boss of a comedy film company;

“5. Senior adviser to the Ukrainian National Defense Committee, Sergei Sivoko, is also a comedian and is Zelensky’s partner in acting.

“If you just look at their resume, you can’t tell whether it is a film and television company or a country’s decision-making body.

“Why has Ukraine completely ignored the geopolitical relations of major powers over the years? It seems that homeland security and national development have nothing to do with these politicians—because it really doesn’t matter, they are basically not Ukrainians.

“Because Ukraine recognizes dual nationality, 80% of senior government officials are American, and 90% of the wealth and people of the rich are in London or Switzerland."

That's pure madness. What the heck is going on in that country? Is it a front for something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, californiasardar1 said:


Are you aware that at the time of the partition, Sikhs did not form a majority in any geographic region of a substantial size?

Sikhs were a majority in two tehsils under British administration: Moga and Tarn Taran. That's it.

Additionally, Sikhs were a majority in the tiny princely state of Faridkot.

The problem in 1947 was that there was a labour government in Britain at that time which had no respect for property rights, had Churchill been returned to power in 1945, the chances are that Sikh property ownership which was 27% of Punjab would have got us a partition line further west than it finally ended up. 

The UN gave over 55% of Palestine to the Jews in 1948 even though they only owned 7% of the land, these land allocation were based on the theory that the land should go to those who could develop it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use