Biden: "Putin is a rational actor"
This propaganda piece is as laughable as Ben Bernanke winning the nobel prize in economics
I'm referring to the Russian state losing winter kits for its soldiers. I only see Pro-Ukrainian media accounts posting this news on TwitterTurkey is a NATO nation, they’re unable to give Russia equipment.
A demographic change in Ukraine where Russian speakers become the majority could become a possibility. Putin needs to also encourage migration of Russians into Ukraine.Russia seems to be taking out Ukrainian power and water facilities with cruise missile strikes. The goal is making industrial society unviable and forcing a mass exodus of the civilian population.
It's not about destroying Ukraine's warfighting ability which is entirely dependent on US imports. It's about destroying Ukrainian society entirely. It's 2022 and not 1972. Ukraine is a well below replacement fertility urban society and not a high fertility rural one like the Vietnamese and Japanese who couldn't realistically escape en mass to greener pastures. The wide open border with Europe will see the entirety of Ukraine's population sans the elderly leave once Power and Water are taken out in the long term basis.
It wouldn't have any short term impact on the battlefield. In the long term it would kill of the Ukrainian nation for good. You can't have a country without any people and if everyone under the age of 18 is in the UK, Poland, France, Canada, or the US.
He can't even encourage his people to stay in their own country and you think he can send them to Ukraine? Ukraine is a warzone and its economy is on the brink of collapse, who would willing migrate there?A demographic change in Ukraine where Russian speakers become the majority could become a possibility. Putin needs to also encourage migration of Russians into Ukraine.
In over 7 months of fighting what have the Russians achieved? They're right back where they started and have even lost large territory in the North and even some territory around Kherson and they are being pressured in the Donbas. This is unsustainable in the long run.
I don't see how Russia can win this anymore. Compared to how they performed in the early stages of the invasion, they have declined significantly in combat effectiveness.
I was in denial because I hoped for the beginning of a multi-polar world but alas it's not going to happen anytime soon it seems. The Russians cannot deliver what was expected of them and the West will be even stronger and more confident after this war ends. How unfortunate!It took you 8 months to come to the conclusion that I came to in one day.
I was in denial because I hoped for the beginning of a multi-polar world but alas it's not going to happen anytime soon it seems. The Russians cannot deliver what was expected of them and the West will be even stronger and more confident after this war ends. How unfortunate!
I realise now why the West is so dominant, it's because they're united in their efforts. That's what the Muslims are severely lacking in, unity above all else.
Russia despite being a large and populous nation is weak because it has few reliable allies. That's what counts in the end, the Soviet Union only survived by joining the Allies when they were invaded by the Third Reich in the summer of 1941.
Change in the world order will come during peacetime and through each individual country becoming richer. Not through conflict.
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun...whoever has an army has power, for war settles everything."- Mao Zedong
Mao was wrong about many things but in terms of political power-building & geopolitics, he was a master at it.
Economic prosperity is not enough to create a change in the world order. A good example is Japan, it's an economic powerhouse sure but its geopolitical reach is restrained through a lack of sufficient military muscle. The Japanese mostly rely on the US for its protection, especially when it comes to the PRC (China).
You can arguably do both at the same time, encourage economic growth and build up your military in the process.Mao said this but his strongest period didn’t come from violence but from the Sino-Soviet split and ping-pong diplomacy.
Obviously grow your military so that it remains a threat, however, real change occurs thru getting rich.
The US became powerful from getting rich and loaning money, making trade deals and economic dominance. That gave them money to spend on their military and gave them allies to bring under their wing.
The problem with Russia and China is that they’re focusing on geopolitical power before enriching their population. The US got rich then decided to play policeman.
You can arguably do both at the same time, encourage economic growth and build up your military in the process.
Most governments possess the capital to create a strong military, if they prioritise it. Russia isn't at wealthy as the United States but it still has one of the largest militaries on the globe with mostly up-to-date weaponry.
China also has an economy that for all intents and purposes surpassed the United States. They still don't spend as much on their military as the US does though because they haven't prioritised it.
The United States spends more proportionally on their military than other similarly wealthy nations, the US prioritise their military might. This is to the detriment of other government services like healthcare and infrastructure repairs.