Karl Haushofer wrote:Do Russian supporters sometimes wish that Russia was more like Israel?
Well when Israel pulls off a coup like it did just now against Hezbollah, incinerating their entire leadership, then yeah sometimes I do. But then I remember that Russia is dozens of times more populous, thousands of times bigger and has been around for a thousand years and seen off or withstood dozens of invaders and wars with neighbouring powers.
Israel has been around for 76 years all of which it has spent in a state of war, sometimes open, sometimes non-declared, has not been recognized by half of its neighbours, and is basically in a constant struggle for its existence which it tries to ensure by ethnic cleansing and settler-colonialism which don't create for it any more friends around the world either.
And its record during its previous incarnation wasn't great either; it alternated between decades long periods of independence to decades long periods of subjugation or exile.
So really life for either hasn't been simple, but I tend to think that Russia has the better ideas about how to go about its business.
It would make supporting Russia far easier. People in general like to root for winners, not losers. Supporting a loser is psychologically demanding, because it predisposes a person to constant negative feelings such as anger, despair and hopelessness.
And yet Russia is winning and its enemies are the ones loosing.
Only the Ukraine supporters are not demoralized because the Empire of Lies feeds them their regular dose of spectacles, the invasion of Kursk being the most recent.
And I think that's what you're really asking for here. Performances and demonstrations of power. Well sorry but you've chosen the wrong side to support if that's what you're after.
For Russians it's not a problem supporting Russia without being subject to constant negative feelings. Number one we don't have a choice. And number two we know history. What happened the last time an aggressor decided to attack Russian forces at Kursk?
I know it is very difficult for a person to change their beliefs and world views. If a person has over the years accustomed an anti-western world view it is very difficult to shake it off. And there is nothing wrong with being anti-western as the West is led by satanic monsters.
I agree. I'm pro-Russian because I understand the nature of the war, and Russia's survival and sovereignty is being threatened. I understand the nature of the Western elites too, and that they mean to subjugate the rest of the world and must be stopped - and for that reason I'm "anti-western" so to speak too and have been for a long time.
But other than that I'm not inherently pro-Russian, I don't think Russia has some holy mission in the world or is better than other countries and civilizations or whatever. I wouldn't support Russia in a war against China or India or Egypt or Mexico or whoever without very valid reasons, which certainly don't exist in the world as it is today.
And I'm not inherently anti-Western either. If they have regime changes of their own, the kind that they insist upon for everybody else, and finally get reasonable elites into power that are ready to co-operate with the rest of the world without insisting on dominance or privileges, then I would have zero reason to be biased against them.
But the problem is that these satanic monsters are winning and they have no credible counter force anywhere.
No, they are desperate, hence why they are resorting to ever more risky moves and trying to appease the crowds with spectacle.
Russia is winning, and has no need to try a risky strategy or to change things up all the time.
China you'll note is doing nothing at all. It's not even engaged in a war. And it's winning more than anyone.
Russia and China are led by leaders that are not capable of standing up against the West. They are risk-averse, favor non-retaliation against aggression and do not support their allies against western aggression in a meaningful way.
I have my concerns about Putin's strategy too given that the West seems determined to escalate at every step.
Nevertheless, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt until NATO missiles start impacting Russia. Thus far Putin's strategy on winning the war while preventing it from spreading into a wider confrontation has worked. Thus far.
Iran has now proved that it is totally defenseless against Israel. Israel could probably militarily decapitate Iran in a few weeks if they would decide.
Like I said, a lesson for Russia here.
Iran is supposed to be a Russian/Chinese ally while Israel definitely is a western ally. While the West has armed Israel up to its teeth, Iran has been left with nothing to fight against Israel. See the difference?
Iran is hardly defenseless. They have everything they need to wage a war, their own determined and capable allies in the Middle East, and the support of Russia and China no doubt too - but whether they have the mettle and the leadership is on them.
Some ten years ago Russia badly betrayed Iran in this field. Iran had already paid for a Russian air defense system (probably S400) but Russia failed to deliver it to Iran. Why? Because Putin listened to Western demands and cucked out. This is the same idiot that offered Russian railways for the usage of NATO cargo in Afghan war, free of charge of course. The NATO paid Russia back by flooding Russia with cheap heroin from Afghanistan.
Russia wasn't in a state of undeclared war with NATO at the time and was able to benefit from Western investment into its industries and Western technologies. Russia had a huge amount of social problems coming out of the USSR collapse and it took decades to fix them too. By avoiding straining relations with the West during his first couple of terms, if not outright appeasing them here and there, Putin was able to buy a lot of time for Russia to sort its internal issues out and strengthen political ties around the world too.
Why couldn't Russia do the same in Ukraine? Why did the idiot in the Kremlin try this "humane" and "brotherhood" style of warfare that was doomed to fail from the beginning? Russia was perfectly capable of militarily decapitating Ukraine's political and military leadership in the first days of the war. It would have caused massive civilian casualties too, but it would have also broken Ukraine's back. And it would have saved tens if not hundreds of thousands of Russian military personnel's lives.
Easy to say in retrospect but what would everyone be saying about Putin if he went in heavy from the start, gave no chance to open negotiations again and then left no-one in the Ukraine to talk to because he killed them?
And do you think that this strategy would have decided the war? Who's to say that the next Ukrainian leader the West would have found to replace Zelensky wouldn't be directing things from Poland instead while having every mandate to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian as it's a brutal invading empire determined to kill all Ukrainians anyway, while probably securing at least Indian and Chinese neutrality as supporting a Russia who took out world leaders might have been a bit too much for them, and who might also be smart enough to know not to interfere in military matters like Zelensky insists on constantly?
Now Russia is stuck with this slower than snails pace war in Donbass while the West is happily arming Ukraine to kill as many Russians as possible.
Problem is your alternative sounds fantastical
Last edited by flamming_python on Sun Sep 29, 2024 11:07 am; edited 1 time in total