the moment putin invaded history was rewritten in the west

actually there are still clips from german mainstream media with heavy criticism for the post maidan regime, nazis and the war in donbas, how russia received a heros welcome in crimea etc

now they are like NEVER HAPPENED LOL

I imagine it would be one thing if the Nazis had just joined in the Maidan and been visibly present before the US overtly moved in and began micromanaging the country and then Ukraine "aligned with the west" and hid its Nazis
but that's not even what happened. Instead we had Joe Biden taking photo ops with Nazi war criminals. The same guy who leads a neo-nazi movement and gave speeches about how the world's jewry is Ukraine's true enemy was chumming it up with the president of the united states. And the vanguard of the Ukrainian army is all diehard nazis who make sure to wave swastikas and tattoo SS symbols on themselves just so their apologists in the west cannot possibly pretend they aren't nazis.

See that's the thing, in Syria we were shipping arms to Al Qaeda and ISIS to fight Assad. Hillary Clinton pretended they were pro-democracy freedom fighters who loved western ideals. The American state department put on a big show about it. The White Helmets staged propaganda shoots for several years straight to prop up the illusion. And most importantly, Al-Nusra wasn't manned by a bunch of 20 year old pseudo-europeans with smartphones and social media access. So they were able to keep up this fiction about how we were shipping arms to 'the good guys' when it was obviously sunni fundamentalists to anyone paying attention. But in Ukraine, we don't even have that. The Nazis proudly show off their war crimes committed with US weaponry.

So here we are, 2 years into Joe Biden's proxy war. We've been funding Nazi war criminals, and we helped overthrow a legitimate democracy and replace it with an autocrat. But the worst crime of all that America is committing is that we're losing. By god, the cynical pragmatists were supposed to be justifying their means, that doesn't work if your 'ends' are undermining US hegemony, losing a war to Russia and aligning the world against us.

i mostly agree and you correctly described the syrian war as a sponsored sunni extremist uprising to overthrow assad

but i disagree with you on america losing the war in ukraine

afghanistan should have taught everyone a lesson: these wars are not about winning on the battlefield

the goals are strictly geopolitical and about endless war to keep the money flowing

in ukraine the goal is already achieved, russia has been weakened, whatever will be left of ukraine is going to be a slave colony and we have entered a new cold war era

and of course, the US are profiting from the energy crisis and deindustrialisation

This post was edited by JohnnyMcCoy on May 4 2024 10:56pm

What are we winning? America doesn't profit from Russia's loss, its not a zero sum game. It might be a zero sum game with China since they're our actual competitor, but instead we picked a fight with a country that doesn't actually threaten our hegemony.
The outcomes of this war are all about those geopolitical implications, but they aren't in our favor, and that's why we're losing in the worst way. Not just on the battlefield, but in all those outcomes.

We weaponized the dollar to try to undermine Russia. This set in motion the end of the petrodollar as an unchallenged world reserve currency. Now nations are either forced to divest from dollars and trade in RMB, or are diversifying to RMB because they cannot trust the safety of their dollars anymore. India in particular, we tried to strongarm them into joining our economic blockade of Russia, they flatly refused and sided against us. We aligned Russia, India and parts of Africa with China. We've sabotaged Europe's long term access to resources. And we've shown the world our impotency, that America can be directly challenged in a proxy conflict by a 'lesser power' and bested. Russia is going to come out of this war with a lion's share of Ukraine's resources, and we're going to gain yet another welfare state in the EU with a net drain on top of a wave of refugees like Syria again.

The military industrial complex doesn't magically just generate value for our country by building and shipping weapons overseas like vampires feeding off the slaughter. The story of Ukraine is a story of the cynical pragmatists and true believing radical nationalists joining a fools crusade together and plunging off a cliff. All we accomplished is eroding our empire.

French president not a Russia friend any longer, here is an info on this topic:

"Zeitenwende" in French. Why did Emmanuel Macron make a U-turn on Russia?

Michał Gostkiewicz, journalist: What is "zeitenwende" in French? Because this German word quite well describes the fundamental turn that Emmanuel Macron has made towards Russia and Eastern Europe.

Dr. Paweł Zerka, European Council on Foreign Affairs (ECFR): You talk about Macron as if Macron were France. France made a U-turn, and not only Macron himself.

Two years ago, Macron tried to talk to the bloody dictator. Now he does not rule out sending troops to Ukraine in the future. The press wrote: "from a dove to a hawk."

Just before the war broke out, Macron clearly believed that diplomacy could prevent it. For some time after February 24, 2022, he believed that talks would be able to end the conflict. But just a few months later he stopped talking to the Kremlin.

I think the breakthrough was the massacre in Bucha. It no longer allowed us to treat Russia as a partner with whom we could talk and negotiate anything.

How much political logic is there in Macron's pivot? Isn't this an attempt to overcome unfavorable opinion polls before the European elections?

This pivot has its roots much deeper than it may seem to us in Poland. I believe that the entire French diplomacy, which had in its DNA the "negotiate first" approach - applied not only to Russia, but to all European policy - has been reoriented.

From Poland we can look at the French as having always had Russophile tendencies. Indeed, in France there is still a perception of Russia through the prism of culture - the belief that there are two great cultural civilizations - French and Russian.

And a few years ago, Emmanuel Macron was also labeled as someone who wanted to negotiate a new European security architecture with Russia alone - with Putin at Brégançon Castle, where he invited him.

Two months after the outbreak of the war, there were presidential elections in France. All sides had to refer to the war and Bucza. None of the candidates wanted to appear as a supporter of a war criminal. As a result, virtually all political forces said that what Russia was doing was wrong. That Ukraine was invaded by its neighbor. This was also reflected in French polls, because most French people think so too.

And I think there is a feedback loop here. The fact that public opinion in France reacted with solidarity with the Ukrainian people was reinforced by the fact that political forces did not differ on this issue either. This, in turn, created space for national consensus on how to understand the war. And at some point Macron realized that there was a change in French thinking about Russia and the East. A change that, in my opinion, has already gone deep.

What exactly is it?

Paris once wanted a smaller European Union - to make it easier to control. Thanks to the reorientation initiated by Macron over the last year, France has become an advocate of EU enlargement. It signed a ten-year bilateral agreement with Ukraine in which it pledges to support it. Suddenly, France supports a vision in which a larger Europe is stronger and safer - although this probably means different degrees of integration and different speeds.
Not entry into the EU in one go after years of negotiations, but gradual integration as further elements of the state and its policies are ready. So that neither Ukraine nor other EU candidate countries wait in the integration hall for a decade or two.

credit and full text (polish): https://wiadomosci.wp.pl/zeitenwende-po-francusku-dlaczego-emmanuel-macron-zrobil-zwrot-ws-rosji-7022175298255776a

America didnt start this war. Russia did. It would be better for mostly everyone if Russia didnt start their conquests, but they did. Now the USA has the following options:
a) dont give any assistance to Ukraine. What happens:
- Ukraine falls as they cannot defend without ammunition and other arms.
- Russia gets additional 20mln citizens who can make more tanks and arms. Ukraine was one of industrial bases for USSR.
- Ukrainians get mobilized into Russian army to make it very strong.
- Russia will probably test NATO solidarity, by attacking eastern NATO states.
- USA will then have to make a choice whether they send their troops to war in Europe or disband NATO and let Russia eat some Europe.
America is strong because they are leaders of the free world, USA has a population of 380mln people, but their alliance (NATO and other close friends) is 1200mln people on all the continents.

give some assistance to Ukraine, here is what happens:
- Ukraine keeps fighting for a few more years, and when both sides are exhausted they sign a peace treaty. Most probably there will be some compromise i.e. Russia keeps Crimea and some eastern Ukraine.
- Russia is exhausted and cannot attack any NATO countries.
- USA stays a leader of the free and powerful world.
- no American blood is shed in Europe.
- in the long term Ukraine joins NATO, giving additional 20 mln people to defend European USA friends from Russia.

At bold, this.

The idea that the US is this omnipotent force responsible for every conflict is false. The fact that its so prevalent in the minds of posters here makes it essentially worthless to debate them.
At this point Russians could invade Alaska and posters here will believe the US planned for it to happen along.

On one hand they will say the US' dominance is crumbling and their influence is waning. The dollar is being usurped; Yet in the same breath they will say the US is responsible for every conflict and its omnipotence knows no bounds.
Which is it, make up your shill minds and get back to me.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on May 5 2024 04:10am

The war in Ukraine started 8 years before Russia went balls deep in it. The civil war was underway as soon as the Maidan occurred, and both the US and Russia joined it with masked interventions before taking the gloves off 2 years ago. You can blame the Ukrainian nationalists for starting the conflict and we can never really know how involved the CIA was and whether they only co-opted it when it was underway and manipulated the outcome, but 'who started it' matters as much as it does to an elementary school teacher, it doesn't matter that Russia didn't start it, they chose to commit to it, and Joe Biden chose to turn it into a proxy war.



If Russia was going to attack NATO it would have done it back when it was the soviet union. If you corner an animal and poke it with a stick until it bites back, you're not proving its dangerous, you're proving you're dangerous.
And again, we're not gaining from this exchange. We sabotaged the petrodollar and aligned all the unaligned world powers against us. Russia is seizing critical resources, we're being given a bunch of impoverished mouths to feed.
Who cares if Russia is diminished? How is that to our advantage? How do we benefit from Russia's loss? They aren't our competitor, they aren't going to eclipse us. I don't think we need to tear down Botswana for fear of the ascendant Botswani empire spreading across the EU and Asia. Botswana isn't digging economic tendrils into the world with its belt and road initiative, carving up the map for influence and resources. We don't benefit when Botswana is cut down to size.

Viktor Yushchenko's poisoning in 2005 ==> Russian central power never wanted freedom for the ukrainian people, or anyone under their control. Mixing U.S with it will not help it.

Btw if you don't support Ukraine then you are supporting Putin, as simple as that, and it is absolutely your right , i will not make a case on this.

During the cold war the NATO had the balls to put Nukes right on NATO border (Germany).
Now there are no nukes in Central/Eastern Europe, so it doesnt deterrent.
Second of all it all comes to personal decisions of the politicians.
Hitler decided to start WW2 and failed, on the other hand USSR leaders didnt indeed attack NATO directly.
Putin has decided to attack Ukraine at the age of 70 years old. He could have attacked them 15 years earlier, yet for some uknown reason he didnt do it back then.
In my opinion he decided to attack because he knows he is getting older, not much life left and wanted to make a "big conquest" before his time runs out.
Stalin conquered half of Europe, half of Germany, so Putin to be "better" needs to conquer a whole Germany at least.