×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules Donate
5

The real purpose of the ukraine war, more important than you think.

submitted by prototype to random 2.0 yearsMay 22, 2023 14:43:47 ago (+5/-0)     (random)

Lets consider 1. modern day china was setup with the help of the soviets.
2. The soviets "collapsed" in 1990. 3. u.s. finance and military helped arm and aid the soviets against germany.

And it occurred to me that theres an alternative explanation for what is happening.

Israel may have been a containment strategy by british-lead europeans against zionists. This obviously failed.
But interestingly, if ukraine were emptied out, what it would do is make europe much more reliant on russian agricultural exports.
More importantly it would use the population imported from israel, as a buffer population against nato, which would explain why NATO wanted an expanded front e.x. Finland. Finland is a fall back.

Russia is trying to break NATO encirclement before it is complete. That means the u.s.
and the west are STILL running on the heartland thesis.

Which would mean what? That china is relevant to this discussion. The two situations are
inextricably linked. If china could take taiwan, the u.s. foothold onto the mainland,
i.e. korea, could be shaken loose, breaking containment--which would immediately put
to question japans alliance with the u.s.

This could only be the case if 1. russia and china are in bed together, and have been covertly for a while, 2. either russia or china is trying to force an alliance with the other.
One is unlikely because its already been established the u.s., or factions of it, are vassal
proxies for the chinese, and most of our actions fighting russia in ukraine have been to
hem it in, forcing russia into chinas arms.
This supports case two, so it's a foregone conclusion then.

Interestingly this would suggest that if Finland makes russias victory in ukraine moot, then
the west would have to move for some alternative or escalation before russia locks in
that victory. This would represent the failure of china's attempt to use the west to hem in russia and lockdown the russians as a long term ally. Which suggests the FSB has broken away from the long term marxist global integration plans. Makes sense actually, interests are permanent, allies aren't. There were always going to be defectors.

Let me explain. The u.s. has increasingly been 'abandoning' zionism in the middle east, in preference to islamic nations. This would make sense if the chinese were 1. running the u.s. for the most part and deciding our foreign policies, 2. courting control of the middle east to shore up and gain leverage for a a takeover of the budding BRICs basket-currency BEFORE it even fully emerges. They don't want shared power, they want leverage, cold hard leverage. Everyones currency ostensibly has a say, but the petroyuan takes the lions share, and if the plan for hemming in russia using their proxy the u.s. worked, then russia would have no choice, especially if the chinese controlled a new turkey or saudi lead coalition in the middle east, thus simultaneously controlling russian exports (because they'd be tied to brics and unable to export through ukraine, and at the same time unable to export through middle eastern hubs without chinese say-so).

Effectively russia's new rump state in ukraine would come to have enormous leverage over russian exports, pitting russia and china against one another, because ukraine could, like the old playbook, decide when and where to shut the gas off and cause immediate multibillion dollar speculative swings in the energy markets. And speculators would flock to it, while long term investment would flee.

This is the same powersharing arrangement between the chinese and the zionists, which allowed the takeover of the u.s.

Communism never died. It's been marching through the institutions of every nation on earth, starting with the soviets, and passing the torch to the british european union, the israelis and the chinese.

Russia hopes by liberating ukraine, knowing a new middle eastern war is coming, that the new jewish population will act as a proxy state, and a buffer, breaking NATO containment, but really what is happening is NATO is being used as a sacrificial effigy and distraction.
With chinese investment in the middle east, and israeli takeover of ukraine (and mass importation of zionists from around the world), between the two, russia will effectively be hemmed in, being run rope-adope between a rock and a hard place, both exerting leverage and pressure on russias exports. They'll trade u.s. sanctions for something worse.

What this means is that everything, and I do mean everything hinges on if erdogan remains in power, or the pre-color-change operations happening there succeed.

If erdogan wins, turkey remains independant, and a challenger to the sauds, who not only were in bed with the israelis (which is why they agreed to take the fall for 9/11), but have been for years. The sauds are the new agreed on leaders of the middle east when israel is made to "fall" and many of them "flee" (are exported) to coalition forces rebuilding ukraine.
With erdogan in the picture, this can't happen. The middle east remains splintered between turkish leadership and globalist selected saudi leadership, and every single major nation, including Iran, uses this divide to inflame the division and jockey for a new rank. We end up with a new major regional conflict involving a dozen or more nations in the middle east.
The plan goes to pot, israel gets annihilated anyway, saudi arabia flips to chinese control for protection, and ukraine goes to russia. The taiwan invasion either doesn't happen or fails, and the u.s. splinter faction thats a proxy for the israelis and chinese, eventually collapses.

If russia wins in ukraine and erdogan loses, then shortly after we see israel lose a major war, and its population flee--this contrary to any prior information you may have heard of russia "kicking out israeli and zionist oligarchs".
If it looks like russia is going to win, but erdogan remains in power, then the entire plan is in grave jeopardy. The u.s. will have to immediately kick off a war in the middle east.
Iran could co-opt this entire plan, a wild card, forcing the sauds to choose. In a three way between turkey, the sauds, and iran, the u.s. would have to intervene, russia would have to intervene, and china would have to intervene. It would turn into another vietnam, times ten.

The u.s. left its weapons in Afghanistan for just such a contingency. To arm the israeli-run isis and taliban, to fight the shia in iran, and provoke them into doing their job against israel, thus removing the risk of the wildcard upsetting the backup plan or potentially flipping the sauds against america or israel.

Heres the thing:
Russia is already winning in ukraine. The sauds are already entering brics and entertaining the chinese, rather than ties with israel. Iran, the weapon meant to get the israelis to flee to ukraine, is refusing any provocations. Iran's refusal to go to war has effectively flipped saudi arabia against the broader plan.

And if that is the case, then I expect a powersharing arrangement to be arrived at soon between many middle eastern nations, with saudi arabia, iran, and possibly turkey as the major heads. It turns out the plan by gaddafi wasn't so much him creating the future, as him seeing an opportunity to co-opt what he saw a inevitable. The thorn in the lions paw was going to be pulled free, no matter who chose to do it. This makes sense in a grand-sort of geopolitical vision on the underlying historical dynamics of the region.

Worse for the globalists, now that all this is already unfolding, if their already-lit fuse on turkey goes through, and erdogan loses power, then saudi arabia and iran likely go to war, and rather than israelis being allowed to flee to ukraine, israel gets outright obliterated.
The u.s. moves in immediately, and russia moves in to prevent turkey from being a u.s. protectorate. China abandons its u.s. proxy, and moves on taiwan immediately, and rather than taking it without a shot fired, the u.s. flips and goes for a hot war what with the chinese-supported faction in the u.s. government abandoned.

Everything hinges on only two meta-variables now: Whether russia wins in ukraine (likely), and whether erdogan remains in power (unknown).

This is what is happening. This is the situation on the ground.


18 comments block


[ - ] bossman131 1 point 2.0 yearsMay 29, 2023 08:49:15 ago (+1/-0)

The US dollar’s supremacy and US global leadership have been increasingly questioned since the 2007–2008 global financial crisis. The fact that this crisis originated in the United States raised concerns about the reliability of US leadership and the rationality of preserving the dollar’s hegemonic position in the global financial system. This crisis also created an opportunity for rising powers to seek greater status and representation in global governance. In 2009, Russian President Medvedev hosted the first BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) Summit in Yekaterinburg to explore how to “overcome the crisis and establish a fairer international system … and discuss the parameters for a new financial system.” Since South Africa joined BRIC in 2010, transforming BRIC into BRICS, the five members have achieved policy coordination in over seventy issue areas. BRICS’ foremost achievements have been in the area of financial cooperation, as evidenced by the establishment of the New Development Bank (NDB), the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), and various other financial coordination mechanisms.

The NDB’s commitment to using local currency finance rather than solely relying on the US dollar is merely the tip of the iceberg of BRICS’ de-dollarization initiatives. It is also an open question whether the accelerated de-dollarization process in Russia and China, triggered by their growing tensions with the United States, is only a temporary change, or whether it forms a broader paradigm shift in global finance. To give this some context, the share of the US dollar in Russia–China bilateral trade settlement fell from nearly 90 percent in 2015 to 46 percent in 2020.

Russia and China have launched their own cross-border payment mechanisms as alternatives to the US-dominated SWIFT network. BRICS has also conceptualized a common BRICS Pay system for retail payments and transactions among member countries, which has been enabled by rapid progress in the financial technology (fintech) sector. Such de-dollarization initiatives are happening largely under the radar of contemporary scholarship. Leaders of these initiatives are reform-oriented rising powers, including strategic adversaries of the United States, that have expressed discontent with the existing US-led dollar-based global financial system. Could these empirical cases serve as the “canary in the coal mine” and represent a larger de-dollarization movement?

Analyzing BRICS as a de-dollarization coalition and how it could mobilize other actors will contribute new and needed insights to the scholarship on rising powers and their impact on US global leadership. This study examines how the US dollar’s dominant position in the global financial system, the very foundation of its global leadership, can be undermined. This topic has important national security implications for the United States. The United States relies upon the dollar’s dominant currency status to credibly exercise coercive economic statecraft and sanction its adversaries. An increasingly de-dollarized world would weaken the United States’ ability to alter the behavior of its adversaries and could consequently magnify US national security threats.

[ - ] La_Chalupacabra 0 points 2.0 yearsMay 22, 2023 17:32:21 ago (+0/-0)

Man, oh, man, is that a lot of jews who are going to be looking for a host nation to squat if your prediction pans out.
A lot of angry jews bitter at someone who isn't themselves for their plan blowing up in their face.

[ - ] GloryBeckons 0 points 2.0 yearsMay 22, 2023 17:04:45 ago (+0/-0)*

Russia is trying to break NATO encirclement before it is complete.

Please rid yourself of this Russian mindrot.

NATO is a defensive alliance. It doesn't encircle anyone. Everyone is free to join. Members being adjacent to other countries is a consequence of geography. They can't just pick up their country and move somewhere else. I'm sure that if they could, most of Russia's neighbors would have done so long ago, and then Russia would accuse us of digging a moat around them.

It was even suggested to Putin for Russia to join NATO. And Putin was interested. Russia could easily be in NATO today. Do you know why it isn't? Because to join NATO, like most clubs, you have to fill out and send in an application. That's the process. That's how you join a group.

But Putin thought this was demeaning: Why should Russia, Glorious Russia, have to fill out an application, just like all those "lesser nations that don't matter"? No, NATO should write up a petition for Russia to join, and send it to the Great Leader Putin to consider, and then Russia will join. That's what he told them. That's the only reason Russia isn't part of NATO. Because an insecure manlet was too arrogant and vain to fill out a form, just like everyone else.

It's like if a Judo club in the neighborhood put flyers in every mailbox on your street saying "Fill out form on back to join today!" but you felt that was just beneath you. But when your neighbors to the left, and to the right, and across the street all join, you start ranting and raving like a lunatic, up and down the street, about how "the Judo club is out to get me!" and "Look, they're encircling me already!"

Oh, and to make the analogy complete, you're also the guy that routinely assaults his neighbors and sets their houses on fire. Which is probably why they were motivated to join the Judo club in the first place.

[ - ] prototype [op] 1 point 2.0 yearsMay 22, 2023 17:32:02 ago (+1/-0)

NATO is a defensive alliance. It doesn't encircle anyone.

I can't take you serious if this is what you believe. Were it just defensive, then the u.s. and its allies in britain wouldn't have initiated the maiden coup and preceded to bomb russian-language ukrainians.

[ - ] GloryBeckons -1 points 2.0 yearsMay 22, 2023 18:35:58 ago (+0/-1)

The US and Britain are run by subversive globalists. They will use kike tactics to infiltrate and corrupt for profit and influence, yes. They do not "encircle" to launch an offensive with NATO. They don't need NATO for that. They only use force against significantly weaker targets, which cannot put up a fight. Against stronger adversaries, they only care about being able to defend in case of being attacked.

Again, the whole encirclement narrative collapses when you consider that Russia could easily be in NATO today if it wasn't too arrogant to apply like everyone else. And then it wouldn't need to worry about being attacked by NATO members at all.

[ - ] prototype [op] 1 point 2.0 yearsMay 22, 2023 18:37:54 ago (+1/-0)

Again, the whole encirclement narrative collapses when you consider that Russia could easily be in NATO today if it wasn't too arrogant to apply like everyone else.

I disagree. Thats assuming russia would actually be accepted. And going on the premise that NATO exists to encircle russia, it explains why russia flouted NATO membership to begin with.
Your theory doesn't hold water unfortunately.

[ - ] GloryBeckons 0 points 2.0 yearsMay 22, 2023 19:18:01 ago (+0/-0)

NATO exists to encircle russia, it explains why russia flouted NATO membership

That makes zero sense. Joining NATO would eliminate any threat of being attacked by NATO. If certain members of NATO conspired to do it anyway, that would be the end of NATO. Because all other members would throw up their hands and say "well what's the point of paying for membership if I'm not protected".

Also, if "NATO exists to encircle Russia"... Why isn't NATO attacking Russia right now? Russia is already "encircled", is it not? By invading Ukraine, it has also given NATO every excuse they need. Before, our population might have rebelled against it. But now they would cheer. Not only that, but Russia's military is tied up and so it is more vulnerable than ever. It has also shown that it was weaker than we thought to begin with. Much of its armor is destroyed. One of its main battleships is sunk. And its ultimate unstoppable supersonic ultraweapon has been shot down multiple times. By our 20 year old missiles, which we have over 10,000 of in our stockpiles.

This would be the perfect time to attack.

So why are no NATO bombs falling in Moscow, and St. Petersburg, and everywhere else?

[ - ] prototype [op] 1 point 2.0 yearsMay 22, 2023 23:09:09 ago (+1/-0)*

That makes zero sense. Joining NATO would eliminate any threat of being attacked by NATO.

Assuming their application would be accepted. Which, judging by their refusal to join, and by the continuous bombing ukraine did against russian-speaking ukrainians after the maiden coup, they came to the same conclusion I did.
It was a bad deal and a bad faith offer.

Why isn't NATO attacking Russia right now?

NATO is attacking russia right now.

By invading Ukraine, it has also given NATO every excuse they need.

Ukraine was not part of nato when the war started.

One of its main battleships is sunk.

Power projection through the sea is a dead meme what with subs and anti-ship missiles. Which is why even though the russians lost such a ship the war didn't immediately escalate further on that alone--because the relative loss of power was less than it appeared. It's why russia moved to secure black sea ports so swiftly afterward, because while projecting power through navies is mostly going away, ships act as a tripwire to alert nations of potential attacks on ports which are important, namely to trade and troop movement.

Much of its armor is destroyed.

The russian armor was outdated, and russians historically didn't rely on it as much because half the year they couldn't move it anyway. They relied on artillery historically, that and massed attacks, which is why they are conscripting people like crazy in russia at the moment. And both of these takeaways are really in-your-face, especially reading reports out of the pentagon from say ten years ago, suggesting that in a hotwar it was expected that russia wouldn't rely on technology, but would instead combine cyber-capabilities combine with heavy ordinance. You don't need sensing tech to beat some 5th gen camo and the latest cyber weapons, if you have the firepower to bomb an entire gridsquare flat and turn off the opponents fancy gadgets.

And what do we see happening in ukraine right now? Massive and growing aerial bombardments. If I were a ukrainian I'd actually be pissed that we were sent on sucide missions for a problem thats best solved with artillery and anti-air weapons. Especiallty considering that despite all the old weaponry NATO et al have supplied you, they've basically gave you short-shift when it came to anything effective against air power. OPs should and could be sending in sappers and suicide drones to target russian airfields and NOT tanks and other ancillary shit. Dropping ordinance that fuck up the terrain. Ideally they ukrainians would use whats left of their aircraft to kamikazi landing strips, or go on tours to drop czech hedgehogs. They don't just work against tanks. It'd fuck up the russian's ability to take off or land, but I digress.

The kinzals or however the fuck its spelled are expensive, but russia has been buying time to build up its capabilities and stockpile. You're kinda fucked on that front.

The key variable here is cost-vs-effect. You're shooting down some of the supersonics, but using way more missiles than you can afford to. They're basically out-producing you. And sanctions against russia won't work because china refuses to play ball, and the u.s. can't make it play ball, and if china were to play ball with the u.s., india would just break sanctions out of geopolitical spite, which I predicted they would before way back when sanctions hadn't even been implemented yet, and what do you know, they did.

The only thing the u.s. and nato has that has a remote chance of working (besides putting competent people in charge, that haven't been mislead by buying western media versions of the war), is maybe some of the AI command (AIC) systems they implemented. I wrote a paper for strafor about a decade ago laying out precisely how and why AIC would change the battlefield, with an emphasis on air superiority. Probably went into a blackhole and I'm getting sidetracked, but a couple of the systems by u.s. defense manufacturers look perfectly viable.

So the questions any ukrainians SHOULD be asking are:
1. why isn't the u.s. providing these system to the ukrainians? (let alone the israelis or any other nation aiding ukraine)

2. why haven't ukrainian command created a section to rapidly develop these applications themselves?
Amateurs are doing this shit in their basements.

I have no horse in the race at all, because I predict a future with a shit ton of war all over the global, both big and small, the worst kind of ugliness, regardless of who wins.


Nevertheless, I'll leave it to you to consider why ukrainian leadership and allies want to lose the war.

I'll take my payment in ukrainian aid money and/or smoking hot ukrainian babes if you want any further advice on how to actually win.

[ - ] GloryBeckons -1 points 2.0 yearsMay 23, 2023 00:20:07 ago (+0/-1)

Assuming their application would be accepted.

Well, we will never know. Since it was never submitted. If your interpretation was correct, the smart move would have been to apply and get rejected. That way Russia could say "See, we wanted peace, we applied to NATO, and they rejected us". Now all they have is self-contradicting nonsense that can only be believed by brain dead zealots. But maybe Russians are just too dumb to think ahead like that.

Ukraine was not part of nato when the war started.

You're missing the point. By invading a foreign country, in Europe no less, butchering its population, and bombing its cities into rubble, they have made themselves the villain in the eyes of 90+% of the Western populace. NATO was broadly viewed as an obsolete financial burden prior to this. Russia's brazen invasion of European soil has reinvigorated support for NATO, and any actions it wants to take against Russia, for decades to come.

This behavior is not consistent with your hypothesis of your government fearing a NATO invasion.

NATO is attacking russia right now.

Supplying defenders is not the same as attacking.

How many NATO bombs and missiles have been dropped on Moscow? How many square miles of Russia has NATO captured so far? Who is invading who? The Russian cries out in pain as he strikes you.

Or maybe you actually bought the line about "fighting all of NATO" when we have sent like 5% of our annual military budget to Ukraine over the past... what is it now? Day 450 of your 3-day special olympics operation? And most of that was in the form of old junk, not worth anywhere near the sticker price.

The key variable here is cost-vs-effect.

$10+ million superdud which is in short supply vs. $3+ million mass produced otc missile with 10,000+ collecting dust in stockpiles. Yeah, I wonder who will run out first. Real mystery.

why ukrainian leadership and allies want to lose the war.

Because they're quite content to sit back and watch as young White men with nationalistic tendencies get butchered by the tens and hundreds of thousands. While at the same time weakening and draining Russia's reserves and capacity to project power as it humiliates itself on the world stage. And Russia, filled from top to bottom with fools like yourself, appears to be quite eager to oblige them.

[ - ] Sector7 0 points 2.0 yearsMay 23, 2023 00:56:50 ago (+0/-0)

Why isn't NATO attacking Russia right now?

NATO has been physically attacking Russia since 2014, and in general for much longer.

[ - ] GloryBeckons 0 points 2.0 yearsMay 23, 2023 01:26:17 ago (+0/-0)

Yes, yes, I know. Merely existing next to Russia is "physically attacking Russia". There, there now. Poor little babies.

[ - ] Sector7 0 points 2.0 yearsMay 23, 2023 18:12:10 ago (+0/-0)

Merely existing next to Russia is "physically attacking Russia".

You seem retarded.

[ - ] Crackinjokes 1 point 2.0 yearsMay 22, 2023 15:18:28 ago (+1/-0)

Ukraine is Israel 2.0

They are clearing the land with the war and the meat grinder to clear it for the new israel.

[ - ] prototype [op] 0 points 2.0 yearsMay 22, 2023 17:37:27 ago (+0/-0)

Ukraine is Israel 2.0

I was wondering that was about for a while. And I was trying to figure out why this was being assisted by various nations. cui bono, you know?

Then while examining the north-korea-south-korea situation I realized someone must think a judaized ukraine would be an excellent buffer. Whose gonna attack them without being made a pariah on the world stage?

It would solve both russia's problem (being considered a long-term threat by her neighbors), because once ukraine's judaized, russia can't attack any longer without being "hitler 2.0". And likewise russia doesn't have to worry about interference from a potential nato partner on their border.

More importantly, with the takeover by ukraine, it destabilizes the newly forming power coalitions in the middle east, and acts as leverage against any upstarts there, such as turkey.

It'd be a short term solution and europe would become isolationist as a consequence.

[ - ] PrincessRobotBubblegum 0 points 2.0 yearsMay 22, 2023 14:57:59 ago (+0/-0)

Thanks for this post!

Worth the read!

Spot on!

oo

[ - ] prototype [op] 0 points 2.0 yearsMay 22, 2023 15:03:03 ago (+0/-0)

Thanks PRB.

Any disagreement? Thoughts? Insights?

[ - ] PrincessRobotBubblegum 0 points 2.0 yearsMay 22, 2023 17:49:08 ago (+0/-0)

The underlying communist schemes may hinge upon a deal made between the Russians and the Chinese, during the time of Tiananmen Square. Always suspected they were up to some long term shenanigans.

[ - ] prototype [op] 0 points 2.0 yearsMay 22, 2023 17:50:54 ago (+0/-0)

The underlying communist schemes may hinge upon a deal made between the Russians and the Chinese, during the time of Tiananmen Square.

Whats your take on the theory that Tiananmen Square was the preliminary steps of an abortive western color-change campaign and why?