Ukraine invasion

[Atilla]

Well, the negotiations have - and will fail - because Ukraine and NATO are talking amongst themselves in a vacuum. Neither of them are engaging in dialogue with Putin and the Russians, let alone addressing the core issues that are the root cause of the war. Whatever one thinks of Trump - at least his administration is talking to Putin and Lavrov.

Two points to bear in mind here. First there are hawks and doves in the US about support for Ukraine. I would go as far as to say Trump has had considerable opposition to his approach and plans at the start. The opposition to Trump may have simmered down but they are still there with alternative objectives. Secondly, Zelensky was not invited to peace talks with Russia couple of months ago. Much of the debate and negotiations didn't include Zelensky.

It seems now, Russia is not consulted as US has stepped back and EU (mainly UK, Germany and France) thinking and searching for how they can profit or grab some concessions from Russia for some payback of sorts. It could be the frozen Russian assets or some other payback. I don't believe we will ever hear the full story as it'll all behind closed doors and under the table horse trading. Eitherway Ukraine is well and trully plucked of her fine feathers.

NATO and the EU are completely sidelined and utterly impotent. They are desperate people resorting to desperate measures with the sole aim of keeping Ukraine afloat financially and keeping the war going. Their worst nightmare is that Putin achieves all the goals he set out at the start of the 'special military operation' and then stops his advance westwards. The insane rhetoric of Mark Rutte, Von der Leyen, Starmer, Macron et al will be exposed for what is is: fear mongering to prop up their failing regimes. When the war ends, their whole raison d'être will be gone and, hopefully, so will they.

Agreed yes. EU countries and weapons industries are lobbying for extra spending, drumming up the war fears. I don't believe EU citizens take the case put forward for Russian expansion or war seriously or even have the stomach for a stupid war which is in no way necessary. Agree fear mongering is futile and I don't see it happening other than the EU caressing public to justify diverting resources to defence spending. I mean the BBC is constantly bullshitting the public about detering Russian expansion from invading other countries. Do people believe this shiite that we are facing invasion by the Russians? Crazy that NATO expands all teh way to Russia's border adn then accuse the Russians of looking to invade European countries.

As for Zelensky, well you know my feeling about that clown. I have a strange feeling the Ukrainian opposition and some of the real and better generals and various patriots he got rid of at the start of the war may ask questions of him. They probably saw these outcomes and wished to prevent the destruction of their country. Zelensky supported by the West got rid of any sensible opposition to his personal interests. That's my take on him.

I don't see the Russian's even attempting to remove him as he is such a disaster for Ukraine. Same for the West as he has their fingers up his arse. I thikn and hope Zelensky is dealt by his own people sooner or later to face the truth and justice for the death and destruction he has brought.

 

[IlIlIlIlI]

Iran’s top general warns of false-flag Israeli attacks on Jews to fuel anti-Semitism

Iran’s top general says Israel could be targeting Jews in other countries to instill fears of anti-Semitism.

www.presstv.co.uk

EU Rejects Russian Energy, Now Faces Soaring Costs and Canceled Holidays - MFA Spox

Brussels’ policy forces local authorities to adopt strict austerity measures, cancel holiday events, and abandon traditional lighting, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said.

sputnikglobe.com

Russian Special Envoy Should Receive Information on US Contacts With Ukraine and Europeans — Kremlin

Russian special presidential envoy for economic cooperation with foreign countries, Kirill Dmitriev, during his talks in Miami should obtain information on Washington's contacts with Ukrainians and Europeans, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Sunday.

sputnikglobe.com

Top Ukrainian Official Lobbied FBI to Stay Out of $100M Corruption Case – Report

A high-profile graft scandal unfolded in Ukraine in November when the National Anti-Corruption Bureau watchdog targeted a murky scheme in the country’s energy sector.

sputnikglobe.com

Peace in Ukraine close like never before — US envoy to NATO​

Strikes On Odesa Bridges: Russia Cuts Ukraine Off From 60% Of Imported Fuel (Videos)

On the night of December 21, according to the Ukrainian Air Force, Russian troops launched 97 attack drones over Ukrainian territory, 75 of which were shot down or suppressed. The primary targets of the Russian strikes were transport crossings in the Odesa region leading to Danube ports such as...

southfront.press

 

[IlIlIlIlI]

Military Situation In Ukraine On December 21, 2025 (Maps Update)

Russian strikes destroyed targets in the Kharkiv, Odesa, Sumy, Zaporizhzhia, Mykolaiv, Kirovohrad, Rivne regions;The Russian army struck the AFU positions in Mayaki, Odesa region;The Russian army struck the Yuzhny port, Odesa region;The Russian army struck an ammunition warehouse in Kramatorsk;

southfront.press

 

[timsk]

Very interesting analysis by Scott Ritter of what's going on in the trilateral negotiations (Russia, U.S., and then Ukraine and EU as the 3rd), and what the end game is. Ray McGovern is knocking on a bit - which is why his delivery is ponderous and not very articulate. Even so, he backs up Scott's assessment and makes the point at the end of the video that NATO without the U.S. is toast. Moreover, for the first time since its inception, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not attend the recent meeting of NATO Ministers of Foreign Affairs. A signal, surely, of what the U.S. thinks of NATO and, by extension EU leaders. Enjoy . . .

 

[Rufus_Leakey]

Very interesting analysis by Scott Ritter of what's going on in the trilateral negotiations (Russia, U.S., and then Ukraine and EU as the 3rd), and what the end game is. Ray McGovern is knocking on a bit - which is why his delivery is ponderous and not very articulate. Even so, he backs up Scott's assessment and makes the point at the end of the video that NATO without the U.S. is toast. Moreover, for the first time since its inception, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not attend the recent meeting of NATO Ministers of Foreign Affairs. A signal, surely, of what the U.S. thinks of NATO and, by extension EU leaders. Enjoy . . .

3:53 Ritter: "There is no air defense, and Russia has the means to eliminate Europe as a viable economic industrial entity overnight. ... If you want to do this, we will do it. But you will cease to exist right now. Because we're ready right now. ... They are ready right now with the conventional capacity to eliminate NATO instantaneously with no nuclear weapons."

That sounds convincing except that surely, Russia could do the same to Ukraine (e.g., to save Russian lives). But that Special Military Operation keeps going and going.

 

[timsk]

. . . That sounds convincing except that surely, Russia could do the same to Ukraine (e.g., to save Russian lives). But that Special Military Operation keeps going and going.

Hi R_L,
Yes indeed, correct. So, why don't they? Good question: here's my explanation . . .

It goes back to Russia's stated objectives from the get go which are to de-militarize Ukraine and rid it of the extremist Stepan Bandera Nazi ideology. If they fail to do that, then Ukraine can just re-group, re-arm and once again pose an existential threat to Russia down the road. By doing what they're doing, Russia's attempting to future proof their security to ensure they never again face the same threat. What's important to understand here - and completely contrary to the western narrative - is that it's not about seizing territory. Never has been, that's 100% western propaganda to justify everything they're doing. It's about protecting Russians in the four oblasts of the Donbas and halting NATO expansion. Putin doesn't need - or even want to conquer all of Ukraine - let alone the rest of Europe! To achieve these aims, by necessity the SMO is a war of attrition: a slow, slow grind which, bit by bit eliminates Ukraine's military. Yes, Russia pays a high price in terms of lives lost, but their thinking is that if they don't do what they're doing, they risk losing many more lives in the future. That's the logic behind it as I understand it. To conclude, the SMO is the exact opposite of what Scott Ritter outlines would likely happen to Europe if they're dumb enough to wage a direct hot war with Russia.
Tim.

 

[Atilla]

Most analysts agree the EU is no match for Russia.

NATO with US participation is a different story. However, there can be no winners ofcourse as likely end game results in all out nuclear war.

 

[IlIlIlIlI]

Blood drips from their pens

TEHRAN – Americans frequently label media outlets from other countries as “state-controlled” or “state-affiliated.” They tell their readers and viewers that foreign media is disingenuous, while American outlets are portrayed as independent, unbiased, and professional.

www.tehrantimes.com

China slams US for ‘arbitrarily seizing’ ships, extends support to Venezuela

China says the US arbitrary seizure of other countries’ vessels is a serious violation of international law.

www.presstv.co.uk

Venezuela Honoring Obligations to US Despite Tanker Seizures - Vice President

Venezuela continues to ship oil to the United States, despite the seizure of tankers carrying Venezuelan crude by the US military, Vice President Delcy Rodriguez said on Monday.

sputnikglobe.com

Lavrov Holds Phone Call With Venezuelan Foreign Minister - Russian Foreign Ministry

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held a telephone conversation with Venezuelan Foreign Minister Ivan Gil, during which they expressed serious concern about the escalation in the Caribbean Sea, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Monday.

sputnikglobe.com

US Energy Sanctions Backfire as China Gains from Cheap Russian Resources​

Russian LNG Exports to China Rise to Record High

Deliveries more than doubled from 2024 to 1.6 million metric tons last month, Bloomberg reports, citing China Customs Office data.

sputnikglobe.com

Sweden Detains Russian-Flagged Vessel Adler in Baltic Sea Amid Sanctions Probe​

Ukrainian Involvement Suspected In Assassination Of Russian Officer In Moscow (Video)

The head of the Operational Training Directorate at the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Lt. Gen. Fanil Sarvarov,...

southfront.press

Moscow Must Respond Symmetrically to the Assassination of General Fanil Sarvarov​

‘Ukrainians Privately Acknowledge They’ll Probably Lose’ Donbass – Vance

Both Russia and Ukraine now clearly understand what is non-negotiable and what remains open to compromise, US Vice President JD Vance said in an interview with the UnHerd news outlet.

sputnikglobe.com

The "Elite" Graveyard: How Ukraine's Foreign Legions Are Being Depleted

The number of foreign mercenaries killed in Ukraine continues to steadily rise. New casualties have been identified who will never return home. The war continues to claim the lives of those who came for easy money.

southfront.press

Military Situation In Ukraine On December 22, 2025 (Maps Update)

Russian strikes destroyed targets in the Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Sumy, Odesa, Zaporizhzhia regions;The Russian army struck a substation and oil terminal in the Odessa region;The Russian army struck AFU targets in Vasylkivka, Kryvyi Rih, Pavlohrad in the Dnipropetrovsk region;The Russian army...

southfront.press

 

[Rufus_Leakey]

Hi R_L,
Yes indeed, correct. So, why don't they? Good question: here's my explanation . . .

It goes back to Russia's stated objectives from the get go which are to de-militarize Ukraine and rid it of the extremist Stepan Bandera Nazi ideology. If they fail to do that, then Ukraine can just re-group, re-arm and once again pose an existential threat to Russia down the road. By doing what they're doing, Russia's attempting to future proof their security to ensure they never again face the same threat. What's important to understand here - and completely contrary to the western narrative - is that it's not about seizing territory. Never has been, that's 100% western propaganda to justify everything they're doing. It's about protecting Russians in the four oblasts of the Donbas and halting NATO expansion. Putin doesn't need - or even want to conquer all of Ukraine - let alone the rest of Europe! To achieve these aims, by necessity the SMO is a war of attrition: a slow, slow grind which, bit by bit eliminates Ukraine's military. Yes, Russia pays a high price in terms of lives lost, but their thinking is that if they don't do what they're doing, they risk losing many more lives in the future. That's the logic behind it as I understand it. To conclude, the SMO is the exact opposite of what Scott Ritter outlines would likely happen to Europe if they're dumb enough to wage a direct hot war with Russia.
Tim.

If Ritters statement "They are ready right now with the conventional capacity to eliminate NATO instantaneously with no nuclear weapons," is true, Russia could eliminate a threat (NATO) instantaneously. That is not about seizing territory.

Since Ukraine is certainly weaker than NATO (even without U.S. honoring NATO commitments), Russia should be able to eliminate any threats from Ukraine instantaneously with no nuclear weapons (also not about seizing territory). But they haven't done that in close to four years.

So, Ritter's statement seems like a large exaggeration to me.

 

[timsk]

If Ritters statement "They are ready right now with the conventional capacity to eliminate NATO instantaneously with no nuclear weapons," is true, Russia could eliminate a threat (NATO) instantaneously. That is not about seizing territory.

Hi R_L,
100% correct.
If you re-read my last post, I said: "What's important to understand here - and completely contrary to the western narrative - is that it's not about seizing territory. [The SMO in Ukraine, that is.] Never has been, that's 100% western propaganda to justify everything they're doing." Apologies if I wasn't clear, but we are told on a daily basis that Putin is intent on conquering Ukraine and, thereafter, the rest of Europe, i.e. seizing territory. Like I say, he has zero interest in seizing territory from anyone - least of all Europe!

Since Ukraine is certainly weaker than NATO (even without U.S. honoring NATO commitments), Russia should be able to eliminate any threats from Ukraine instantaneously with no nuclear weapons (also not about seizing territory). But they haven't done that in close to four years.

Well, for the reasons I thought I'd explained in my last post, they could end the war today by taking out Zelensky and the regime propping him up etc., rendering the country rudderless and ungovernable. The reason they don't do that is because it would not solve the core problem or achieve the primary objective of the SMO: to destroy Ukraine's military capability so they can't pose an existential threat to Russia in the future. Remember, it's a war of attrition. To stop Russia advancing, the AFU have no option but to throw men, arms and ammo at the front line where they are eliminated. They have no choice but to play Russia's game and they're losing simply because the Russians have more of everything and what they have is, generally speaking, better than what Ukrainians have.

So, Ritter's statement seems like a large exaggeration to me.

All Ritter is referring to is Russia's arsenal of Oreshnik missiles and other weapons of a similar capability that the west (and Ukraine) can not defend against. So, for example, if Putin wakes up one morning and orders his generals to destroy Buckingham Palace or the Houses of Parliament in central London - they could. There's absolutely nothing - militarily speaking - to stop them from doing that. Obviously, they're not going to do that but, the point is that they could do it if they wanted/needed to. Similarly, if they wanted/needed to, they could "eliminate Europe as a viable economic industrial entity overnight".

I hope that's cleared up any misunderstanding!
Tim.

 

[Rufus_Leakey]

Hi R_L,
100% correct.
If you re-read my last post, I said: "What's important to understand here - and completely contrary to the western narrative - is that it's not about seizing territory. [The SMO in Ukraine, that is.] Never has been, that's 100% western propaganda to justify everything they're doing." Apologies if I wasn't clear, but we are told on a daily basis that Putin is intent on conquering Ukraine and, thereafter, the rest of Europe, i.e. seizing territory. Like I say, he has zero interest in seizing territory from anyone - least of all Europe!


Well, for the reasons I thought I'd explained in my last post, they could end the war today by taking out Zelensky and the regime propping him up etc., rendering the country rudderless and ungovernable. The reason they don't do that is because it would not solve the core problem or achieve the primary objective of the SMO: to destroy Ukraine's military capability so they can't pose an existential threat to Russia in the future. Remember, it's a war of attrition. To stop Russia advancing, the AFU have no option but to throw men, arms and ammo at the front line where they are eliminated. They have no choice but to play Russia's game and they're losing simply because the Russians have more of everything and what they have is, generally speaking, better than what Ukrainians have.


All Ritter is referring to is Russia's arsenal of Oreshnik missiles and other weapons of a similar capability that the west (and Ukraine) can not defend against. So, for example, if Putin wakes up one morning and orders his generals to destroy Buckingham Palace or the Houses of Parliament in central London - they could. There's absolutely nothing - militarily speaking - to stop them from doing that. Obviously, they're not going to do that but, the point is that they could do it if they wanted/needed to. Similarly, if they wanted/needed to, they could "eliminate Europe as a viable economic industrial entity overnight".

I hope that's cleared up any misunderstanding!
Tim.

So, you are saying the phrase "eliminating instantaneously" doesn't mean removing a threat completely but instead means do something small like assassinating Zelensky or destroying a few buildings. I guess being a native English speaker, I missed that interpretation.😉

Therefore, since Russia wants to win, Russia keeps up its war of attrition because there are a lot more Russians, North Koreans et al. available for sacrifice than Ukrainians and their mercenaries. That strategy worked for Stalin, but unlike today‡, there were enemies were existential threats to the Soviet Union.

‡ Ukraine just wants to get back the land Russia took over, and NATO does not want to take over Russia. Russia still needs to watch over their good "friend" China who seems to want Russian territory among others.

Mistake Or Malice? China's New Map Shows Russian Territory As Part Of PRC Despite Resolving Border Dispute

China’s inclusion of the Russian territory of the Bolshoy Ussuriysky/Heixiazi island on the Amur River in its new map, despite the countries officially resolving the territorial dispute 15 years ago, could be a mistake, experts suggest. The border issue had officially been settled by dividing...

www.eurasiantimes.com

 

[timsk]

So, you are saying the phrase "eliminating instantaneously" doesn't mean removing a threat completely but instead means do something small like assassinating Zelensky or destroying a few buildings. I guess being a native English speaker, I missed that interpretation.😉

Errrr, I think it was you that used that phrase, not me! Be that as it may, I assume you're not going to nitpick over the definition of instantaneously? The point is - as you must surely understand by now - that in pretty short order, Russia has the capability to "eliminate Europe as a viable economic industrial entity".

Therefore, since Russia wants to win, Russia keeps up its war of attrition because there are a lot more Russians, North Koreans et al. available for sacrifice than Ukrainians and their mercenaries. That strategy worked for Stalin, but unlike today‡, there were enemies were existential threats to the Soviet Union.

No, that's not the reason for doing it - it's the reason they're able to do it, and continue with it as it as it's the best means to an end. You say there's no existential threat to Russia: I suggest you re-read my earlier post #7454 and the link to the Rand report which is U.S. foreign policy re. Russia. Continuing with this ol' cliché that NATO is a defensive force, not an offensive one is simply not supported by the evidence. NATO, combined with U.S. foreign policy - is clearly at the root cause of this conflict.

‡ Ukraine just wants to get back the land Russia took over, and NATO does not want to take over Russia. Russia still needs to watch over their good "friend" China who seems to want Russian territory among others.

Ukraine just wants to get back the land Russia took over.
Even they must realise there's a snowball's chance in hell of this happening and it's an utter waste of life, money and property pursuing such an obviously unobtainable goal, especially as the only consequence of doing so is losing much more of everything. It's clearly insane.

NATO does not want to take over Russia.
The only purpose of NATO is to go to war with Russia. Nothing else, that's its entire raison d'être, period. Besides which, given that your 'peace' President is openly engaging in acts of war with Venezuela, tooling up Taiwan in preparation for war with China and eyeing up Greenland, what makes you so sure he wouldn't like to get his hands on Russia? Remember, Biden openly called for regime change in Russia. The west is Russo-phobic, keen to expand its sphere of influence eastwards (U.S. hegemony), and get its grubby little mitts on Russia's abundant natural resources.

Russia still needs to watch over their good "friend" China who seems to want Russian territory among others.
Another story for another day, me thinks!
Tim.

 

[IlIlIlIlI]

Run, Bella, Run: How a Tanker Escaped the U.S. Coast Guard​

Flash War: Why AI Is More Dangerous Than Nuclear Weapons​

Die Zeit: Germany’s Defense Chief Says Putin Does Not Seek Full-Scale War With NATO​

Grabbing is in Fashion: US Seizure of Venezuelan Oil Mirrors Global Trend

President Donald Trump has announced that the US will keep or sell oil confiscated from Venezuela – what precedent does it set?

sputnikglobe.com

EU's Plans to Seize Russian Assets Undermines Bloc's Authority – Venezuelan Lawmaker

The European Union's intention to seize frozen Russian assets is eroding the bloc's position on the international stage, Venezuelan lawmaker and Chairman of the People's Electoral Movement party Gilberto Gimenez told Sputnik.

sputnikglobe.com

EU Unity Shrivels as Ukraine Funding Plan Using Stolen Russian Assets Goes Belly-Up

By failing to tap Russia’s illegally frozen assets for the much-hyped “reparations loan” for Ukraine, the EU has left the Zelensky regime staring at a funding cliff, European reports lament.

sputnikglobe.com

US ‘Golden Fleet’ Wishful Thinking, Not Military Reality – Former Marine

President Donald Trump has promised a major boost to US naval power - what’s known so far, and is the project feasible?

sputnikglobe.com

Military Situation In Ukraine On December 23, 2025 (Maps Update)

Russian strikes destroyed targets in the Odesa, Zaporizhzhia, Kharkiv, Sumy, Zhytomyr, Dnepropetrovsk, Rivne, Kyiv, Ivano-Frankivsk, Cherkasy, Vinnytsia, Lviv, Khmelnytskyi regions;Russian forces struck the Burshtynska Thermal Power Plant (TPP) in the Ivano-Frankivsk region;Russian forces struck...

southfront.press

 

[Atilla]

This Ukraine war is "simply" about NATO expansion to Russia's border leaving no time to respond to any missile attack.

NATO which is supposed to be a defensive alliance due to her expansion has caused / created a war which was wholly avoidable.

For all the chitty chatty the big men at the top had sufficient and clear warnings about red lines. They knew exactly well the consequences. This shit show was going on well before 2014 in Ukraine with the constant march of their 12th Special Forces Avoz Brigade. A whole fucking "Nazi" battalion. Not just some football hooligans. It was massaged, sponsored and fabricated with that clown Zelensky and his TV show.

Joe public does NOT know or have a clue what goes on and how these negotiations get conducted. BBC as well as the national MSM is simply a brown mouth piece of the establishment who are all in it together.

BBC news broadcasters still sitting round talking about Russia invading Europe and how we are going to stop the Russian expansion if we don't stick together blah blah blah.

US got the pay out double time, with rare earth minerals steal from the Ukrainians and selling expansive LNGas to Germans and Europe.

Europe got well and trully turned and just as Warsaw pact no longer exists, is there any need for NATO?


Some part of me thinks the Europeans are every now and then talking up the threat of Russian invasion to go forward with the idea of a unified Army? I doubt it as that'll be like herding cats when no one has a fight in their belly.

And here we are...


Merry Christmas everyone... 🥳🎄🧁

 

[IlIlIlIlI]

The Oligarch (Part 1): Who made Zelenskyy president and drove Ukraine into war​

Trump /// //// // /// //// /////

TEHRAN – The illusion that Jeffrey Epstein was a singular, anomalous monster operating in a vacuum has finally dissolved into the sulfuric air of the American political necropolis.

www.tehrantimes.com

A Deal Closer Than Ever: Zelensky Discloses 20 Points of the US-Ukraine Peace Plan​

West needs Zelensky's peace plan to pump resources out of Ukraine — expert​

Several points of Zelensky’s so-called plan unworkable, expert says​

FSB Thwarts Ukraine-Planned Terrorist Attack on Transneft Oil Pipeline

The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) said on Wednesday that it had prevented a terrorist attack planned by Ukrainian special services to blow up the Transneft oil pipeline in Russia's Tyumen region.

sputnikglobe.com

Military Situation In Ukraine On December 24, 2025 (Maps Update)

Russian strikes destroyed targets in the Khmelnytskyi, Kyiv, Rivne, Sumy, Kharkiv, Odesa, Zaporizhzhia, Chernihiv, Cherkasy, Poltava, Dnipropetrovsk regions;The Russian army struck warehouses, temporary dislocation points, military logistics hubs, and air defense systems in the Sumy and...

southfront.press

 

[Rufus_Leakey]

Errrr, I think it was you that used that phrase, not me! Be that as it may, I assume you're not going to nitpick over the definition of instantaneously? The point is - as you must surely understand by now - that in pretty short order, Russia has the capability to "eliminate Europe as a viable economic industrial entity".


No, that's not the reason for doing it - it's the reason they're able to do it, and continue with it as it as it's the best means to an end. You say there's no existential threat to Russia: I suggest you re-read my earlier post #7454 and the link to the Rand report which is U.S. foreign policy re. Russia. Continuing with this ol' cliché that NATO is a defensive force, not an offensive one is simply not supported by the evidence. NATO, combined with U.S. foreign policy - is clearly at the root cause of this conflict.


Ukraine just wants to get back the land Russia took over.
Even they must realise there's a snowball's chance in hell of this happening and it's an utter waste of life, money and property pursuing such an obviously unobtainable goal, especially as the only consequence of doing so is losing much more of everything. It's clearly insane.

NATO does not want to take over Russia.
The only purpose of NATO is to go to war with Russia. Nothing else, that's its entire raison d'être, period. Besides which, given that your 'peace' President is openly engaging in acts of war with Venezuela, tooling up Taiwan in preparation for war with China and eyeing up Greenland, what makes you so sure he wouldn't like to get his hands on Russia? Remember, Biden openly called for regime change in Russia. The west is Russo-phobic, keen to expand its sphere of influence eastwards (U.S. hegemony), and get its grubby little mitts on Russia's abundant natural resources.

Russia still needs to watch over their good "friend" China who seems to want Russian territory among others.
Another story for another day, me thinks!
Tim.

Ritter used the term "instantaneously" to mean Russia could eliminate a perceived threat (NATO) quickly. My argument is if that was true, Russia could have done this to Ukraine shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine from Belarus in 2022, but it didn't work. Hence, we have the ground and pound war currently.

The purpose of NATO is currently mostly to defend against Russia. And NATO expanded with Finland and Sweden as a result of Russia's threats and actions against other countries.

The whole NATO forced Russia to invade Ukraine because Ukraine/NATO is an existential threat to Russia is ridiculous, in my opinion. It's Russia that's an existential threat to Russia. Why -- Russia keeps on invading and threatening other countries, and the rest of the world knows that now.


I almost forgot -- Merry Christmas to all!

 

[timsk]

Morning' R_L,

Ritter used the term "instantaneously" to mean Russia could eliminate a perceived threat (NATO) quickly. My argument is if that was true, Russia could have done this to Ukraine shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine from Belarus in 2022, but it didn't work. Hence, we have the ground and pound war currently.

Indeed they could.
But, for the reasons I've gone to great lengths to explain - doing so would not have achieved the core objectives of the SMO. You clearly don't want to 'hear' that message for whatever reason - and haven't taken it on board - so there's little point in me labouring it any further.

As an aside, the initial incursion into Ukraine at the start of the SMO that you claim didn't work - was not a strike of the sort Ritter was referring to. Nowhere near! It was just a wake up call to jolt Ukraine into their senses and show them that Russia was serious. Far from failing, it worked very well, as it resulted in a negotiated settlement overseen by Naftali Bennett - the former Prime Minister of Israel, in Istanbul. Three days later, (but before the deal was signed by Zelensky and Putin), Boris Johnson - under instructions from Biden, Blinken and Newland et al, went to Kiev and told Zelensky not to sign it, as the U.S. and NATO had his back. That was a fatal mistake of epic proportions that Zelensky must bitterly regret every day.

The purpose of NATO is currently mostly to defend against Russia. And NATO expanded with Finland and Sweden as a result of Russia's threats and actions against other countries.

That was (note tense) the reason NATO was set up after the cold war. That purpose was eradicated completely with the fall of the Berlin wall and the subsequent break up of the former Soviet Union. The only way NATO can retain a shred of relevance today is to manufacture a non existent threat from Russia which, to be fair - it's done very well. The only problem is that Russia has gobbled up most of it's money (certainly Europe's), destroyed most of its weaponry and generally humiliated it on all fronts. Now, the one country upon which NATOs future rests - the U.S. - wants to wash it hands of the whole debacle because Trump knows Russia has all but won the war. If/when the U.S. does a deal with Russia, NATO will be toast - which will be great news for millions of people who live in fear of NATO's 'defensive' attacks.

The whole NATO forced Russia to invade Ukraine because Ukraine/NATO is an existential threat to Russia is ridiculous, in my opinion. It's Russia that's an existential threat to Russia. Why -- Russia keeps on invading and threatening other countries, and the rest of the world knows that now.
I almost forgot -- Merry Christmas to all!

Why do you think the idea of NATO being an existential threat to Russia is ridiculous? If China formed a military alliance with Mexico with the intention of lining nukes all along the border with the U.S. - would you maintain there's no existential threat to the U.S.? If so, I accept your viewpoint. If not, then you need to do what no one in the west does and put yourself in Russia's shoes and imagine how you'd feel with U.S. nukes along the Ukrainian border less than 500 miles from Moscow. What's ridiculous IMO, is how anyone can deny this is an existential threat to Russia when it's so obviously exactly that!

Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Tim.

 

[IlIlIlIlI]

Health system nears ‘complete paralysis’ as Israel uses medicine as weapon: Gaza officials

Head of the Government Media Office in Gaza says medicine has become a weapon in the hands of the Israeli occupiers.

www.presstv.co.uk

UNSC session shows West failed in snapback gamble

TEHRAN – Western states dragged Iran and members of the UN Security Council to a session on Tuesday to push for the implementation of pre-JCPOA UN sanctions against Iran, which the E3 (Germany, UK, France) managed to be reinstated back in August, but faced substantial challenges in implementing...

www.tehrantimes.com

Russia Has Plan to Respond to Possible Seizure of Assets Frozen in West - Deputy PM Novak

Russia has a plan to respond to the possible seizure of assets frozen in the West, and it will be implemented if necessary, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said on Thursday.

sputnikglobe.com

Slow Progress Seen in Russia-US Talks on Ukraine - Russian MFA Spokeswoman

Slow but steady progress is being observed in Russia's negotiations with the United States on a Ukrainian settlement, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said on Thursday.

sputnikglobe.com

Kiev has no resources to feed 800,000-strong army mentioned by Zelensky — Russian envoy​

Zelensky's desire to maintain army size proves he is not thinking about peace — politician​

EU needs to understand Kiev never to repay its loans — Russian Foreign Ministry​

Cracks In Ukraine's Foundation Grow: Citizens Clash With Draft Offices As Zelensky's Inner Circle Thrives

The inhumane Ukrainian forced mobilization machine is treating its own citizens with increasing harshness. The segregation of society into "untouchables" and "cannon fodder" is raising social tensions to unprecedented levels. Citizens' growing resistance to conscription officers is prompting...

southfront.press

Military Situation In Ukraine On December 25, 2025 (Maps Update)

Russian strikes destroyed targets in the Zaporizhzhia, Sumy, Kharkiv, Chernihiv, Odesa, Cherkasy, Dnipropetrovsk, Kyiv regions;The Russian army struck AFU targets in Ilichivsk, Zatoka, and Mayaki, Odessa region;The Russian army struck an enterprise in Trostyanets, Sumy region;Russian Geran...

southfront.press

 

[Atilla]

Morning' R_L,

Indeed they could.
But, for the reasons I've gone to great lengths to explain - doing so would not have achieved the core objectives of the SMO. You clearly don't want to 'hear' that message for whatever reason - and haven't taken it on board - so there's little point in me labouring it any further.

As an aside, the initial incursion into Ukraine at the start of the SMO that you claim didn't work - was not a strike of the sort Ritter was referring to. Nowhere near! It was just a wake up call to jolt Ukraine into their senses and show them that Russia was serious. Far from failing, it worked very well, as it resulted in a negotiated settlement overseen by Naftali Bennett - the former Prime Minister of Israel, in Istanbul. Three days later, (but before the deal was signed by Zelensky and Putin), Boris Johnson - under instructions from Biden, Blinken and Newland et al, went to Kiev and told Zelensky not to sign it, as the U.S. and NATO had his back. That was a fatal mistake of epic proportions that Zelensky must bitterly regret every day.


That was (note tense) the reason NATO was set up after the cold war. That purpose was eradicated completely with the fall of the Berlin wall and the subsequent break up of the former Soviet Union. The only way NATO can retain a shred of relevance today is to manufacture a non existent threat from Russia which, to be fair - it's done very well. The only problem is that Russia has gobbled up most of it's money (certainly Europe's), destroyed most of its weaponry and generally humiliated it on all fronts. Now, the one country upon which NATOs future rests - the U.S. - wants to wash it hands of the whole debacle because Trump knows Russia has all but won the war. If/when the U.S. does a deal with Russia, NATO will be toast - which will be great news for millions of people who live in fear of NATO's 'defensive' attacks.


Why do you think the idea of NATO being an existential threat to Russia is ridiculous? If China formed a military alliance with Mexico with the intention of lining nukes all along the border with the U.S. - would you maintain there's no existential threat to the U.S.? If so, I accept your viewpoint. If not, then you need to do what no one in the west does and put yourself in Russia's shoes and imagine how you'd feel with U.S. nukes along the Ukrainian border less than 500 miles from Moscow. What's ridiculous IMO, is how anyone can deny this is an existential threat to Russia when it's so obviously exactly that!

Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Tim.

It's very hypocritical of people who talk about Russia violating international agreements or saying things like "Russia keeps on invading and threatening other countries" when it is has clearly been the US fighting wars and invading other countries. That quote is pulled out of someones indoctrinated brain who clearly has no sense of justice or balance in their comprehension other than thinking and believing their own shit is somehow is the gospel truth when it is anything but.

US wars and invasions to list a few...
- Vietnam,
- Interference in Latin America supporting Fascist and corrupt junta governments,
- Afghanistan,
- Iraq,
- Iran,
- Syria now
- Venezuela and
- Nigeria of all places.

All very unjust and stupid wars to feed the war machine corporations in the US to sustain its obese desire to sell guns and make more money.

The world needs balance of power.

Contained proxy wars may be managed by humanity but a nuclear war will pretty impact just about each and everyone of us, irrespective of who ever wins.

 

[Rufus_Leakey]

It's very hypocritical of people who talk about Russia violating international agreements or saying things like "Russia keeps on invading and threatening other countries" when it is has clearly been the US fighting wars and invading other countries. That quote is pulled out of someones indoctrinated brain who clearly has no sense of justice or balance in their comprehension other than thinking and believing their own shit is somehow is the gospel truth when it is anything but.

US wars and invasions to list a few...
- Vietnam,
- Interference in Latin America supporting Fascist and corrupt junta governments,
- Afghanistan,
- Iraq,
- Iran,
- Syria now
- Venezuela and
- Nigeria of all places.

All very unjust and stupid wars to feed the war machine corporations in the US to sustain its obese desire to sell guns and make more money.

The world needs balance of power.

Contained proxy wars may be managed by humanity but a nuclear war will pretty impact just about each and everyone of us, irrespective of who ever wins.

Your whataboutism isn't a very strong argument. Do two wrongs make a right?