Russia Dismisses Proposed Peace Deal from Trump Transition Team

[Chomper Higgot]

20 minutes ago, mokwit said:

Did you know I was quoting Adolf Hitler speaking in advance of the invasion of The Soviet Union?. How it ended is well known

 

Initially it looked as though that might be the case but Russia is a vast land with a huge population. They moved their tank factories beyond the range of German aircraft because the land was vast enough that they could. They could take losses in a strategy of attrition that bled the German manpower resources dry. The Germans destroyed 7,000 Russian tanks at the WW2 battle of Kursk and the Russians were able to continue mounting offenses.

 

 

You can then move onto Stalin exporting the grain and food out of Ukraine to cause a genocidal famine.

 

The Ukrainians know what they are fighting against and precisely why losing isn’t an option.

 

 

[AndreasHG]

3 minutes ago, mokwit said:

the Russians were able to continue mounting offenses

 

12 minutes ago, mokwit said:

The Germans destroyed 7,000 Russian tanks at the WW2 battle of Kursk

 

Russia won thanks to the backing of the US. Have you ever heard of the Lend Lease Act?

 

The U.S. sent over $11 billion in supplies (in 1940-45 US$) to the Soviet Union, including 400,000 vehicles, 14,000 aircraft, 13,000 tanks, 8,000 tractors, 4.5 million tons of food, and 2.7 million tons of petroleum products.

 

Russia reciprocated by contributing with the one resource the country has always been rich: cannon fodder.

 

Notice that when fighting alone, Russia has achieved less remarkable results.

Russia was the first "European" power to ever been severely beaten by an Asian country (Russo-Japanese War, 1904-1905). 

Russia was unable to win over little Finland in the Winter War (1939-1940), despite being, at least on-paper, overwhelming more powerful. 

The same story that is currently unfolding under our own eyes in Ukraine.

 

I stand behind my statement: just politely knock on the door and let the Russians finish the job for you.

 

[newbee2022]

On 1/2/2025 at 12:06 PM, Neeranam said:

Are you one of the deniers that he is unfit?

Yes, I'm one of those millions🤗

[mokwit]

47 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

45 minutes ago, AndreasHG said:

 

 

Russia won thanks to the backing of the US. Have you ever heard of the Lend Lease Act?

 

The U.S. sent over $11 billion in supplies (in 1940-45 US$) to the Soviet Union, including 400,000 vehicles, 14,000 aircraft, 13,000 tanks, 8,000 tractors, 4.5 million tons of food, and 2.7 million tons of petroleum products.

 

Russia reciprocated by contributing with the one resource the country has always been rich: cannon fodder.

 

Notice that when fighting alone, Russia has achieved less remarkable results.

Russia was the first "European" power to ever been severely beaten by an Asian country (Russo-Japanese War, 1904-1905). 

Russia was unable to win over little Finland in the Winter War (1939-1940), despite being, at least on-paper, overwhelming more powerful. 

The same story that is currently unfolding under our own eyes in Ukraine.

 

I stand behind my statement: just politely knock on the door and let the Russians finish the job for you.

 

 

 

 

 

Trucks food and commodities and explosives were the most significant and the Russians acknowledge the Lend Lease contribution to victory.

The 13,000 tanks were mostly M3 tanks (some M4) which were unusable against German armies (as the US found out in Africa), but they did allow T34's to be withdrawn from facing Japan and used against Germans in the West. The Germans destroyed 7,000 tanks just at Kursk. Their contribution was thus not that great. Similar picture with obsolete aircraft (P39 Aerocobra) sent. Germans had fighter aces with kills in the hundreds in the Soviet Union.

 

'The Soviet Union, produced around 84,070 T-34 tanks during World War II. However, if we're considering all types of tanks produced by the USSR during the war, the total number of tanks and self-propelled guns manufactured was approximately 116,000 units. This figure includes:

    T-34 tanks: Approximately 84,070
    KV series tanks: About 5,219 in total (KV-1, KV-2, KV-85)
    IS series tanks: Around 3,854 (IS-1, IS-2)
    Light tanks like the T-70, T-60, and others
    Soviet Union produced approximately 25,163 assault Guns.

 

So 116,000 tanks and 25,163 assault guns (armoured turretless tanks) = 141,163 i.e. TEN TIMES the number US supplied.

 

These numbers are subject to slight variations depending on the source, but they give an accurate picture of the scale of Soviet tank production during WWII.'

 

My point was about how vast Russia is and how it could field 116,000 tanks from it's own production and millions of men and absorb the losses of millions and continue. Trucks food and commodities on lend lease allowed Russia to prosecute the war, yes, but sheer numbers of tanks and 'planes and soldiers and in particular artillery plus 'deep battle' tactics were what gave them victory. Finland was a sideshow that they did not put too much effort into.

 

So, you can go on believing what you want to believe (your avatar suggests you are emotionally vested), and may be right in doing so, but i don't think it will be the easy job you think it will be.

 

[gargamon]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

Is RT a propaganda arm of the Russian government?

 

Also according to the internet RT is banned from Meta.

 

Yet you seem to believe it.

 

Perhaps it is you that is incorrect.

So you don't know what sarcasm is?

[AndreasHG]

1 hour ago, mokwit said:

So, you can go on believing what you want to believe (your avatar suggests you are emotionally vested), and may be right in doing so, but i don't think it will be the easy job you think it will be.

 

I believe that Russia has already lost. It would never admit it but:

1. Russia has no chance of subjugating the whole of Ukraine. It may maintain its territorial gains, but free Ukraine will be aligned with the West, the EU, the US and will be staunchly anti-Russian. A much bigger thorn in Russia's western side than if Russia had not waged a war against it.
    
2. Russia wanted to stop NATO expansion. But following the war against Ukraine, NATO has become bigger and more powerful, because it will invest more in defense.
    
3. Through a show of force, Putin wanted to demonstrate to the world that Russia is today a great power.
   The performance of the Russian army and armaments has been so disappointing that it has convinced the world of the exact opposite. Russia is a dwarf desperately trying to appear bigger and more dangerous than it actually is.
    
4. When the war ends (hopefully soon), Russia will be faced with the problem that a significant portion of its GDP is tied to the war, and produces nothing of value to use in peacetime.
   The Russian defense industry employs approximately 3.5 million people in 2024 and accounts for 20% of all manufacturing jobs in Russia.
   Hundreds of thousands of men currently employed by the army and paid high wages will be laid off without any opportunity to find similarly paid jobs in civil society.

This is nothing new. This happened every time Russia waged war. World War II is the only exception, because Russia was not sanctioned but rather supported in its post-war recovery.
This happened at the end of the First World War, when tsarism was overthrown, and at the end of the war in Afghanistan, when the Soviet Union collapsed. And this time it will be the turn of Putin's regime. 

Soon it will be time to politely knock on the door and see the whole Putin's house of cards collapse.

The Russian double-headed eagle will soon become a meal served in KFCs around the world. 

[Lacessit]

17 minutes ago, AndreasHG said:

 

I believe that Russia has already lost. It would never admit it but:

1. Russia has no chance of subjugating the whole of Ukraine. It may maintain its territorial gains, but free Ukraine will be aligned with the West, the EU, the US and will be staunchly anti-Russian. A much bigger thorn in Russia's western side than if Russia had not waged a war against it.
    
2. Russia wanted to stop NATO expansion. But following the war against Ukraine, NATO has become bigger and more powerful, because it will invest more in defense.
    
3. Through a show of force, Putin wanted to demonstrate to the world that Russia is today a great power.
   The performance of the Russian army and armaments has been so disappointing that it has convinced the world of the exact opposite. Russia is a dwarf desperately trying to appear bigger and more dangerous than it actually is.
    
4. When the war ends (hopefully soon), Russia will be faced with the problem that a significant portion of its GDP is tied to the war, and produces nothing of value to use in peacetime.
   The Russian defense industry employs approximately 3.5 million people in 2024 and accounts for 20% of all manufacturing jobs in Russia.
   Hundreds of thousands of men currently employed by the army and paid high wages will be laid off without any opportunity to find similarly paid jobs in civil society.

This is nothing new. This happened every time Russia waged war. World War II is the only exception, because Russia was not sanctioned but rather supported in its post-war recovery.
This happened at the end of the First World War, when tsarism was overthrown, and at the end of the war in Afghanistan, when the Soviet Union collapsed. And this time it will be Putin's regime that collapses. 

Soon it will be time to politely knock on the door and see the whole Putin's house of cards collapse. 

 

 

The other problems Russia faces are its pariah status, and the removal of sanctions, which are crippling its financial system and ability to trade freely. There's no guarantee sanctions will be lifted in any peace deal.

Worse still, foreign investment will be very reluctant to come back to a kleptocracy which seized many foreign companies with zero compensation.

Any major projects Russia wants to develop will have to be funded by the Chinese, who are not noted for their benevolence in financial transactions. Their help will come at a steep price.

Putin is ex-KGB. He's good at thieving, but has no economic credentials to speak of.

[Lapun]

To go back to the start of this thread, at the 01:20 mark of this video note what Trump says about ending the Russo-Ukraine war:

 

 

Looks like me didn't meet his promise.

[AndreasHG]

1 hour ago, Lapun said:

Looks like me didn't meet his promise.

 

Doing the right thing is more important than timely delivering on an electoral promise.

I am often critical of President Trump. I despise narcissits, men who disrespect women and lose cannons. And Trump is a mix of all of that.

But I hope that the Trump administration will do the right thing, not only with regards to Ukraine, but also with regards to other matters. A strong USA is in the best interest of the free world.

 

[marquess]

8 hours ago, transam said:

"Russia doesn't need the West", I disagree, it's their leader that doesn't need the West.

Still, I hope folk there get McDonald's back one day, and have a leader of peace, who is not involved with commie thoughts, eh...

The largest country in the world with trillions of dollars of resources.

[3NUMBAS]

On 1/2/2025 at 12:09 AM, portisaacozzy said:

Russia is in a very very strong p0sition, Russia could loose another 100000 troops and stil able to replace them.Wake up !

180,000 convicts to the front 

[Lacessit]

7 hours ago, mokwit said:

Did you know I was quoting Adolf Hitler speaking in advance of the invasion of The Soviet Union?. How it ended is well known

 

Initially it looked as though that might be the case but Russia is a vast land with a huge population. They moved their tank factories beyond the range of German aircraft because the land was vast enough that they could. They could take losses in a strategy of attrition that bled the German manpower resources dry. The Germans destroyed 7,000 Russian tanks at the WW2 battle of Kursk and the Russians were able to continue mounting offenses.

 

 

IMO you are confusing offensive and defensive operations.

 

Russia,  conducting a defensive operation against Hitler, had several factors in its favor - the morale of their soldiers defending the motherland, much shorter supply chains, and the Russian winter. They had support from the West, not sanctions.

 

It's the other way around in Ukraine. The Ukrainians are just as accustomed to winter as the Russians, they are the ones with Western support. The Russians are the ones with morale problems, and long supply chains. They have already demonstrated their abject incompetence in logistics.

 

There's no doubt Russians are good defenders. In offensive operations, the butcher's bill they have with human wave tactics is not an indicator of excellence.

 

Military doctrine indicates defence is always less costly than offense, which makes the Ukrainian achievement of invading the Kursk area even more impressive in terms of planning and leadership.

 

[marquess]

8 hours ago, candide said:

No 🤣

It is Germany.

https://countrycassette.com/countries-by-gdp-ppp-purchasing-power-parity/

 

And PPP is not really relevant to compare the economic power of countries.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/by-gdp

 

Isn't the UK in a recession, and Gemany deindustrialising due to engery  costs? Without cheap Russian gas  Europe is economically on very thin ice. US LNG is three times the price. Zelensky has refused to renew the 5 year transit deal that earned his $800m per year. The Russians turned off the gas through Ukraine on 1st Jan, this will result in a 5% loss of overal European gas supplies. Here are a plethora  of links to stories about Russia out stripping Germany in terms of purchains power and become the 5th largest economy in the world. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Russia+outstrips+Germany+economically&t=h_&ia=web

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, marquess said:

Isn't the UK in a recession, and Gemany deindustrialising due to engery  costs? Without cheap Russian gas  Europe is economically on very thin ice. US LNG is three times the price. Zelensky has refused to renew the 5 year transit deal that earned his $800m per year. The Russians turned off the gas through Ukraine on 1st Jan, this will result in a 5% loss of overal European gas supplies. Here are a plethora  of links to stories about Russia out stripping Germany in terms of purchains power and become the 5th largest economy in the world. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Russia+outstrips+Germany+economically&t=h_&ia=web

John McCain once described Russia as a gasoline station masquerading as a country. In case you have not heard, the world is moving away from fossil fuels, in response to climate change.

 

Germany has technologically-advanced, world class companies such as BASF, Krupp-Thyssen, Siemens, Henkel, SAP, Bayer, and Bosch.

In automotive alone, it has Mercedes, BMW, VW and Audi. What does Russia have - Lada?

 

A country that has to cannibalize imported refrigerators and washing machines for microchips is a primitive economy. The prediction it will overtake Germany is laughable.

[mokwit]

10 hours ago, Lacessit said:

IMO you are confusing offensive and defensive operations.

 

Russia,  conducting a defensive operation against Hitler, had several factors in its favor - the morale of their soldiers defending the motherland, much shorter supply chains, and the Russian winter. They had support from the West, not sanctions.

 

It's the other way around in Ukraine. The Ukrainians are just as accustomed to winter as the Russians, they are the ones with Western support. The Russians are the ones with morale problems, and long supply chains. They have already demonstrated their abject incompetence in logistics.

 

There's no doubt Russians are good defenders. In offensive operations, the butcher's bill they have with human wave tactics is not an indicator of excellence.

 

Military doctrine indicates defence is always less costly than offense, which makes the Ukrainian achievement of invading the Kursk area even more impressive in terms of planning and leadership.

 

In the part you were quoting I was countering the assertion that Russia was about to collapse by pointing out Hitler thought it would too with one blow, and what the Russians were able to do because of the vastness of their land and resources.

 

Still on the historical, the Russian advance from the gates of Moscow to Berlin was an offensive operation.

 

In terms of the current situation I think the key point is that the Russians ARE fighting a defensive war. They launched an offensive to gain territory and then forced Ukraine to fight a defensive war to try and get it back. It is not about territory it is about attrition. Ukraine already has press gangs grabbing military age males off the streets and ads for Western support, what reall? Yes some missile systems, and a handful of tanks that are proving to have had overestimated capabilities.

 

According to Ukrainian and Western propaganda Ukraine has been winning from day one, but still hasn't won. We are told of the appalling Russian logistics but they are still fighting and have managed to prosecute this war so far, apparently with flat tyres on their vehicles, rotten food rations, no artillery shells and virtually no tanks left for months and months [according to Ukranian/Western propaganda] so we should perhaps not underestimate them based on one sided propaganda.

 

Meanwhile the Ukranian army has been decimated in a war of attrition that was about just that, attrition. That's how Russia prosecutes a war. Remember when Ukraine was "winning", but somehow it still hasn't won. The Russian strategy is to pull them into a meatgrinder to destroy the army, after which it might expand territory. The attack at Kursk was to try and dislodge Russia by cutting supply lines. It seems supplies are still getting through and Ukraine has lost more men.

 

The war Ukraine is winning is the propaganda war in the West, where the opposition is not allowed to field it's forces. Are Western politicians going to be able to justify sending money to Ukraine unless there is positive news?  Ukraine has to keep mounting attacks to keep the news flow and thus the funds coming.

 

I am not saying the Russians are doing well, I am just saying that they are not doing as badly as Western/Ukranian propaganda with its focus on territory not lives lost would have us believe. 

 

 

 

 

[mokwit]

15 hours ago, AndreasHG said:

 

I believe that Russia has already lost. It would never admit it but:

1. Russia has no chance of subjugating the whole of Ukraine. It may maintain its territorial gains, but free Ukraine will be aligned with the West, the EU, the US and will be staunchly anti-Russian. A much bigger thorn in Russia's western side than if Russia had not waged a war against it.
    
2. Russia wanted to stop NATO expansion. But following the war against Ukraine, NATO has become bigger and more powerful, because it will invest more in defense.
    
3. Through a show of force, Putin wanted to demonstrate to the world that Russia is today a great power.
   The performance of the Russian army and armaments has been so disappointing that it has convinced the world of the exact opposite. Russia is a dwarf desperately trying to appear bigger and more dangerous than it actually is.
    
4. When the war ends (hopefully soon), Russia will be faced with the problem that a significant portion of its GDP is tied to the war, and produces nothing of value to use in peacetime.
   The Russian defense industry employs approximately 3.5 million people in 2024 and accounts for 20% of all manufacturing jobs in Russia.
   Hundreds of thousands of men currently employed by the army and paid high wages will be laid off without any opportunity to find similarly paid jobs in civil society.

This is nothing new. This happened every time Russia waged war. World War II is the only exception, because Russia was not sanctioned but rather supported in its post-war recovery.
This happened at the end of the First World War, when tsarism was overthrown, and at the end of the war in Afghanistan, when the Soviet Union collapsed. And this time it will be the turn of Putin's regime. 

Soon it will be time to politely knock on the door and see the whole Putin's house of cards collapse.

The Russian double-headed eagle will soon become a meal served in KFCs around the world. 

I feel that there is validity to some of your points, but you are maybe overestimating effect e.g. Russia's 'New Model Army' has not performed as well as expected, but it is still an effective fighting force.

 

It is not just Ukraine that is fighting for survival. Russia believes it is fighting for the survival of Russia as a country, it's people and it's culture. Putin's stance is that the war on Ukraine was for stopping the alliance against it while it still can. Also, it does not want Western Liberalism forced upon it. Putin is on record as saying so.

[transam]

11 hours ago, marquess said:

The largest country in the world with trillions of dollars of resources.

That they can't sell because their leader has gone on a land grab crusade...........

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, mokwit said:

In the part you were quoting I was countering the assertion that Russia was about to collapse by pointing out Hitler thought it would too with one blow, and what the Russians were able to do because of the vastness of their land and resources.

 

Still on the historical, the Russian advance from the gates of Moscow to Berlin was an offensive operation.

 

In terms of the current situation I think the key point is that the Russians ARE fighting a defensive war. They launched an offensive to gain territory and then forced Ukraine to fight a defensive war to try and get it back. It is not about territory it is about attrition. Ukraine already has press gangs grabbing military age males off the streets and ads for Western support, what reall? Yes some missile systems, and a handful of tanks that are proving to have had overestimated capabilities.

 

According to Ukrainian and Western propaganda Ukraine has been winning from day one, but still hasn't won. We are told of the appalling Russian logistics but they are still fighting and have managed to prosecute this war so far, apparently with flat tyres on their vehicles, rotten food rations, no artillery shells and virtually no tanks left for months and months [according to Ukranian/Western propaganda] so we should perhaps not underestimate them based on one sided propaganda.

 

Meanwhile the Ukranian army has been decimated in a war of attrition that was about just that, attrition. That's how Russia prosecutes a war. Remember when Ukraine was "winning", but somehow it still hasn't won. The Russian strategy is to pull them into a meatgrinder to destroy the army, after which it might expand territory. The attack at Kursk was to try and dislodge Russia by cutting supply lines. It seems supplies are still getting through and Ukraine has lost more men.

 

The war Ukraine is winning is the propaganda war in the West, where the opposition is not allowed to field it's forces. Are Western politicians going to be able to justify sending money to Ukraine unless there is positive news?  Ukraine has to keep mounting attacks to keep the news flow and thus the funds coming.

 

I am not saying the Russians are doing well, I am just saying that they are not doing as badly as Western/Ukranian propaganda with its focus on territory not lives lost would have us believe. 

 

 

 

 

True, it's a war of attrition. You are missing the point the attrition is happening to Russia as well, and not just on the battlefield.

 

Russia's supply of troops is not inexhaustible. The presence of North Korean troops proves that. Putin knows if he starts conscripting in Moscow and St. Petersburg, the sham of Russian propaganda will be exposed.

 

Figures don't lie, except perhaps when they come from official Russian sources. Bank interest rates of 21% mean the cost to borrowers is 5-6 basis points higher. Food inflation of 10%, IMO it is higher than that. The fact forex trading in the ruble has been suspended to prevent shorting illustrates continuing attrition in purchasing power.

 

After some kind of peace deal is brokered, you think the Russians will have won? No foreign investor except China will touch Russia with a barge pole, and China has its own problems.

 

There are no winners in this war, both sides lose, however territory is distributed.

 

 

[Hakuna Matata]

Gilbert Doctorow   Transcript of ‘Dialogue Works’ edition of 3 January   By gilbertdoctorow on January 3, 2025 Transcript submitted by a reader   Nima R. Alkhorshid: 0:06 Hi everybody, today is Friday, January 3rd, 2025, and our friend Gilbert Doctor is back with us. Welcome back, Gilbert.   Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: Good to be with you and happy new year.   Alkhorshid: Happy new year. Let's get started with what's going on right now between Russia and the United States. The Russian representative to the UN said that they're receiving mixed messages from Washington. What does it mean and what do they understand from Washington right now?   Doctorow: Well, to my understanding, the Kremlin does not take seriously the belligerent remarks coming from General Kellogg and from the other nominated persons around Trump, nominated to positions in the military and foreign relations. These have been out of line, not supportive of the message that Donald Trump was delivering before the election, which was one of finding a peace solution and one that was rather sympathetic, I would say, to the Russian situation. Instead, there has been this belligerency, how they will pound Russia if Russia does not come to the negotiating table under the dictates from Washington. That's what Mr. Trump's assistants have been saying. Trump himself has been usually quiet, although when he, a week ago, 10 days ago, came out saying that he believed that Biden's decision to permit the use of American missiles to strike deep into Russia was a foolish and dangerous decision. That already alerted Russia to the fact that Mr. Trump was a man they probably could do business with.   And accordingly, they have put to the side the negative remarks of his assistants and advisors, and they are hopeful that a meeting with Trump can be arranged, a direct meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. They see, in any case, as the Soviet Union always felt, the natural talking partner in global affairs for Russia is a country of its own scale, and that is the United States, and not these pygmy countries that make up Western Europe, who as they now fully realize are simply servants of Washington. They don't want to negotiate with the servants, they want to negotiate with the master.   Alkhorshid: But the situation, I think at the end of the day, there has to be some sort of understanding of the situation in Ukraine, is the situation in Ukraine and the way that the Biden administration is trying to send more aid, more weapons, and right now with the situation that Ukraine has with the European Union, are they really in a better position in Ukraine?   Doctorow: Well, the position of Ukraine is worsening day by day. And then you have Mr. Zelensky coming out and bravely saying that the final cutoff of gas deliveries via the Ukrainian pipelines to Europe was a major defeat that he had inflicted on Russia. Well, that is-- maybe he can enjoy that small comfort. But the reality on the ground is of course, very depressing for any Ukrainian patriots; they are losing badly on the ground. And that's not that there's no fighting spirit on the Ukrainian side; there is. And they are making small counterattacks here and there along this 1200-kilometer-long line of confrontation. Nonetheless, their small counterattacks are being beaten down by the Russians, and the Russians are advancing daily kilometers here and there on the front. The most important thing is not to consider just their advancing, or what this means for the Ukrainian defenses. They are not giving the Ukrainians time as they fall back to construct defensive earthen works or concrete bunkers or whatever. So the Ukrainians are moving backwards without any defense.   Therefore, this onward march of the Russians westward is likely to continue, and therefore the Russians have had absolutely no interest in talking about a ceasefire. They will not give the Ukrainians a chance to recover, to most importantly, to find shelter from which they can hold their positions. I think-- so the war is going very badly for the Ukrainians and any bright spots that Mr. Zelensky tries to present to the Western press are really beside the point.   Alkhorshid: It seems that the Russians were approached by Emmanuel Macron and France. They're talking about negotiating without Ukraine being part of those negotiations. First of all, is Russia interested to negotiate with France, as we saw? Because France was part of that negotiations in Minsk II, and they didn't respect that.   Doctorow: Well, I don't think that Moscow has any high regard for Macron, on the contrary. The political observers believe that he has lost his political power. And I think they anticipate that his government, not the government, but that he personally will fall, will be forced to resign, especially if the latest government fails the vote of no confidence. So on those grounds, whatever Mr. Macron would say would not be taken very seriously by Moscow. But the bigger issue is that this question of France or another country acting as-- European country-- acting as intermediary, is of no interest to the Russians, for the reason I said a moment ago. They will seek a solution to the war that is embedded in a solution to Europe's security architecture. The boundaries, where the Ukraine exists, what kind of Ukraine it will be, what will happen to the neo-Nazis -- all of these issues are relatively minor and are not of interest to Moscow today. They will be regulated, resolved in accordance with the resolution of the big issue of Russia and NATO in Europe and what is the security architecture. And for that, there's only one interloctor, only one talking partner, and that is Donald Trump in Washington. All of the NATO member states in Europe account for nothing in this. Decisions about NATO were taken in Washington, not in Paris or London or xxxxx.   Therefore, for Russians to get a solution, to negotiate a solution to what Europe's architecture of security looks like, there is only one person to deal with, and that man is Donald Trump. And since he made plain in his first term and reiterated in his campaign speeches for this election, November 5th, that NATO does not seem very attractive organization for him, particularly when all the member states are not carrying their weight and are dependent on the United States to essentially defend them. Though I think that there is ground for talk and negotiation and compromise between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin with respect to the future of NATO.   Alkhorshid: Do they see Keith Kellogg's proposal as a bargaining process or they see someone that is totally disconnected with the reality?   Doctorow: I think it's the second. But nobody understands, and I put myself in when I say nobody, including myself, understands fully the logic of Trump's appointing this collection of neocon personalities in which Kellogg is one of them, and Rubio is another. These high-level positions that he's designated in this future administration, they are hardliners. And what is the sense of this? The sense that I tried to find some weeks ago is that he wanted to gather all of his enemies in one room and then dominate them or ensure that they could not break free of his control and denounce him in general. That's one possibility. Another was an insurance policy for himself. He's left everyone slightly uncertain what policies he will pursue once he takes office, And that is for him the best protection against another assassination attempt. As when Mr.-- when Tony Blinken can believe that by shipping all of these several billion dollars in arms and financial assistance to Ukraine now in the closing days of their administration, they are doing Donald Trump a favor by strengthening his negotiating position-- if that's what they think, then I think that Mr. Trump has been very successful in bamboozling the people who hate him into hoping for or believing in a possible continuation of their disastrous policies under Trump. If he had appointed only people like Tulsi Gabbard, then I think there would be extra contracts out for his murder.   Alkhorshid: In your opinion, right now, Russia, when they look at Donald Trump and this administration, as you've mentioned, most of them are neocons and connected with the neocon ideology. Do they, you remember those days when Donald Trump was running for 2024 presidential election, just weeks ago, Do they have the same sort of idea about Donald Trump? They have the same sort of hope about him? Or it's changing in the Russian mind, in the Russian media?   Doctorow: The Russian media have for weeks been saying that whoever is elected in the United States makes no difference, that the deep state is running the show, and that we should not expect any miracles from Donald Trump. That was the basic policy line across all of the major media in Russia. This came, that was the first reaction to the very disappointing nominations that Trump made. And also with looking back to the experience of so much hope that was invested in Trump before his first term in office by the Russian side, all to be disappointed bitterly in what followed when he appointed this whole series of very anti-Russian advisors and implementers. So for these various reasons, Russians were saying, "We will solve the problem of Ukraine by ourselves, thank you. We will crush the Ukrainian army and we will make a peace on our terms. End of discussion." But in their heart of hearts, they knew that wouldn't the end of discussion, because it didn't address the reason why they went to war, which was NATO. And if they would succeed in crushing Ukraine and making, imposing a peace that prohibited foreign military installations and personnel operating in Ukraine, that would still not end the existential threat that NATO poses to Russia by its other locations. There is a common border with Poland, by Kaliningrad. There is now this 1200-kilometer-long border with Finland, which has invited in all sorts of American installations and personnel. These threats will continue. There's also the intentions of NATO and the United States to stir up trouble in Georgia, to stir up trouble in Armenia, to stir up trouble in Moldova. So peaceful living will not be possible for Russia even if they succeed in utterly destroying the Ukrainian army. Destroying the Ukrainian army of course is a big deal, but it is not the end of the conflict with the United States-led race.   Alkhorshid: When it comes to this security of Europe and those agreements that Russia was talking about on December 2021, and they were asking for some sort of security agreement. Right now, is that the same or they're going to put some sort of, I'm not talking about Ukraine, I'm talking about Europe, or do they have some more considerations about Europe?   Doctorow:  Those terms were set down in December of 2021 dealing with one president who was a bitter, hardline Cold Warrior. Now, what will be on the negotiating table will be before Mr. Trump, who is somewhat unpredictable, but perhaps, perhaps meant what he said when he spoke so disparagingly about NATO. And perhaps, perhaps can scale down American participation in NATO to the degree where it just collapses for lack of military might. Without the United States participation, full steam, there's nothing. All the European countries put together count for nothing militarily. For any overseas mission, they all rely on them, and several of them, unfortunately, in the last 25 years, they have relied entirely on American air support, logistical support, not to mention weaponry. The armaments in Germany-- to look only at the number count is to miss the point of the quality of the count. They are inferior to what Russia fields. They're unable, NATO in Europe, without the United States, is unable to stand up to Russia. It can do so only by resorting to nuclear weapons, since there are after all France and Britain both are nuclear powers and aren't dependent on America, the nuclear umbrella, they could pose a serious threat to Russia if they decided to replace the United States as the guarantor. But that is improbable. The use of nuclear weapons is [to open] Pandora's box, which would very quickly result in the destruction, the utter destruction of Europe. Therefore, that's improbable as a scenario. So as I'm saying, if Trump simply cuts back on American support for NATO, doesn't have to leave NATO. Leaving NATO is a very difficult trick to pull off because American law requires a Congress-- congressional approval, which Trump will not get for this.   But he has his own very extensive powers as chief executive to either implement and execute appropriations that were made to NATO or obligations that were assumed with respect to NATO. He can simply default on his obligations and no one can say a word, and NATO will collapse like a house of cards. There is, therefore, room for Russians to hope that a deal can be struck with Donald Trump. It's not essential to end this war. The war will end, Ukraine will end with a Ukrainian capitulation. That's almost certain. But the confrontation and the risks of escalation into something horrible will remain so long as NATO enjoys its present status.   Alkhorshid: If we consider the Biden administration, Victoria Nuland, Joe Biden, Anthony Blinken, and Jake Sullivan, These were those people who were totally connected with the situation in Ukraine. They have done a lot to bring this war to that region. And right now Joe Biden is not functioning, Victoria Nuland is gone.   Two other characters are Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan, still in power. Just removing these two figures from the conflict in Ukraine and replacing them by Waltz and Rubio. We know that Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan have a lot of connection with Zelensky and his administration. They're totally connected. They have a lot of links. But replacing these two figures and by the Trump administration, is that going to bring some sort of change? Is that considerable in your opinion?   Doctorow:  That's imponderable. Look, I go back to what I was saying a few moments ago. The appointment of these odious figures to be, to senior positions in the administration, can be what it looks like, which is not good, or it can be something that it doesn't look like at all, which is following the rule of "keep your enemies close to your chest".   Alkhorshid:  Yeah.   Doctorow: The way to disarm, to defang these people is to have them more close to himself and that he is not dependent on them for advice. He will be keeping counsel with himself and with a very few select people who are not in that circle. For example, Elon Musk, who is probably the person closest to the president and who certainly cannot be expected to pursue any of the Biden policies that people like Rubio would appear to back.   Alkhorshid:  The situation with the Russian gas, Russia not being able to send their gas directly to Slovakia and other countries. Do you think that-- Sikorsky yesterday he was bragging about how strong Ukraine is in cutting off the Russian gas. Do you think that this would bring even more problems within the European Union, or the situation cannot get worse? Well, it certainly doesn't improve relations between Slovakia and Brussels. That's ... clear. Mr. Fitco was rightly angry at everything that Von der Leyen was doing, and she is among those who is calling for an absolute cutoff of Russian hydrocarbons to the European Union.   The poll of Russians, Mr. Sikorsky can make his propaganda points. In general, I think Sikorski is the <deleted> on his pants. The Poles, the top-level Poles, I think are very worried about Russian power today. They may have their orders for tanks and everything else coming in from Korea, but the reality is that Russia has everything now.   And what was true two years ago, that the Polish elite were saying that Russia could just roll over them. I think that remains the case. And therefore, Sikorsky is kind of singing a nice positive sound for the public. I don't believe for a minute that he feels confident of Polish security in the face of an aggressive Russia, aggressive if Russia feels threatened by anything the Poland is doing. Therefore, let's look at the reality of this cut-off. Russia's relations with Ukraine over the transit of its gas to Europe, over on the same pipelines and gas reserve system that Ukraine has maintained. This goes back to 2005. There were big conflicts in 2005, 2006, and 2009 over first of all over siphoning off gas that was in the pipeline from Russia with intention of being transferred to Western Europe, but was siphoned off by Ukraine for its own needs without any records, without any offer of compensation. Then there was Ukraine's inability or unwillingness to pay for the gas they received. And so there were big conflicts and a shutdown of Russian delivery of gas in 2009, which was of course raised as an issue of Russia's reliability by all the usual propagandists in Washington and Western Europe. The fact that the cut, shut-off, took place because they weren't paid for what they delivered, nobody bothered to talk about. Nonetheless, there was this background of Russia's difficulties with a pre-2014 Ukraine that was dishonest, thieving, and malicious. And after 2014, it has been, and particularly after the start of the special military operation, when the Ukrainians, who Mr. Zelensky has been calling daily, weekly, monthly for Europe to impose the most drastic sanctions to deprive Russia of its financial means to pursue the war against Ukraine, it was an anomaly that Ukraine itself was facilitating the delivery of six and a half billion dollars worth of Russian gas to Central Europe over its pipelines. Of course, there had been much more delivered over those pipelines prior to the self-prohibition imposed by various European member states on receiving pipeline gas from Russia. But there was still this residual six and a half billion, which represented five percent of European Union gas consumption that was passing through the Ukrainian pipelines. Now that has stopped since the five-year contract under which it was being delivered was not renewed. And that is six and a half billion dollars less that Russia will earn from that particular pipeline. It means one billion dollars per year less that Ukraine will earn as transit fees. So he can claim that he is harming the Russians, but he is harming his own economy to the tune of one billion dollars a year. Considering the kind of infusion of money he receives from Washington, I don't think that one billion is a great loss to Mr. Zelensky and his circle. A loss of six and a half billion for Russia is also not what it looks like. It is reasonable to assume that a fair portion of that gas that is not going to be delivered by this pipeline will be delivered as liquefied natural gas to Europe by Russia. Despite all of the talk of cutting back on hydrocarbon imports from Russia, in 2024 the European Union imported more Russian gas by liquified natural gas than it did in 2023. So it's reasonable to assume that some of the gas deliveries not going through the Ukrainian pipeline will now reach Europe in the form of LNG. But that remains to be seen, of course. Overall, to take that six-billion-dollar loss, and I want to say all the Russians are suffering, the Russians have imposed on themselves a much heavier loss of income in arms sales. I believe their annual arms sales were running at 30 billion dollars a year. They're now running at zero, because all of Russia's arms production capability is focused on satisfying demand of its own armed forces to pursue the war in Ukraine and to prepare for a war with NATO. Therefore, if you want to look at overall costs, let us say this is one fifth, one sixth of what Russia has itself sacrificed to pursue the war without any reference to sanctions or actions by Western Europe or the United States. That's to put it into perspective.   Alkhorshid:  If Fico in Slovakia, you've mentioned Brussels being responsible for what's going on, but I would point out that Washington would be responsible for what's going on with Ukraine. I do believe that they're thinking that it's going to be part of the bargaining process for them. And the question is, to what extent Washington is willing to sacrifice Europe in the process of conflict in Ukraine?   Doctorow: Oh, it doesn't hesitate for a moment. I think one of the wins for the United States in the whole war in Ukraine is precisely that it's reinforced, reached probably a never-before level of control over everything that's going on in Europe. So from that standpoint, for Europe to be weakened, for Europe to feel threatened, and to realize its total dependency on the United States for security. That is all a plus for Washington, in Washington's book. You would think that in a normal world, the United States would want to have strong allies. But regrettably, that wisdom is not understood in Washington, and they much prefer to have slaves. And in the crop of elected leaders in Europe, they have 27, 25 willing slaves, which is very, very sad and is what condemns Europe in its present configuration to a zero role in the world.   Alkhorshid:  How about Syria? Do we know that Russia would stay in Syria or they're going to leave?   Doctorow: I don't have any special insider knowledge. I look at what's on YouTube and there are a lot of sensationalist video clips on what Putin is doing, not doing in Syria, what he is doing, not doing in Libya. I cannot comment on this because I don't believe any of these ... widely watched and sensationalist video clips are based on verifiable fact. So I just sit tight and wait to see how it develops. I believe the Russians would like to stay in Syria.   I believe that the government in Damascus would like to have the Russians there as a kind of counterforce in case things don't go too well with Israel, in case things don't go too well with Israel, in case things don't go too well with Turkey. They would like to have another player of weight at their side. So it could be they'll strike a deal, but I have no insider's knowledge to judge what is now going on. And Russian media say nothing about it.   Alkhorshid:  It seems that the deal between Iran and Russia, the agreement that comprehensive agreement would be signed on January 20th, hours before Donald Trump takes office in Washington. Are they talking about what it's going to be with how they're going to, what are the ... influence, what are the main objectives of this agreement? Because right now nobody knows what's going to be in that agreement. Are they talking about it in the Russian media or they're not talking about anything about it?   Doctorow:  No, they're not talking about it. I don't think that the content has been leaked by anybody in the circle of Vladimir Putin. And so we'll wait and see. The logic is that it will have this big component of mutual defense. The logic is that this will provide substantial assistance to Iran in deterring irresponsible, reckless action by Israel and its US backers. But to what extent Moscow is comfortable with the government in Tehran, we don't know.   Alkhorshid:  Yeah. And right now, situation in Ukraine, Joe Biden is leaving Washington and Donald Trump is coming. Are we going to be surprised before Joe Biden leaving? Because the days are just running out. The Biden administration is running out of time right now.   Doctorow: The logic is that the Russians will increase their offensive and will try to reach the Dnieper before the inauguration. That would certainly facilitate talks with Trump, because they will have achieved most of their objectives in the special march operation. And they would ease the situation for Trump himself because it wouldn't look like he's compromising things when they've already been lost. That is the logic. But whether I think Putin is willing to take additional losses, which any major offensive would necessarily entail, that again is unforeseeable. The latest Russian achievements is that they took Kurakhove, which is one of the logistical hubs. They still have not completed their conquest of Pokrovsk, or Krasnoyarsk, as they're calling it now. But that is clearly going to fall in the next several weeks, meaning that the Russians will have a clean route to the Dnieper, because the major defence points and logistical points will have been lost by the Ukrainians. And it's a straight run across the plain without any particular elevations or major rivers that would slow them down. The Ukrainians will not be slaughtered in one day. They will fall back and fall back and fall back until they reach the river and find a way across. But I think there's a reasonable expectation that in the coming month, the Russians could finish up xxxx xxxxx.   Alkhorshid:  The situation in AfD, Alternative for Germany, and the changes that are happening in Germany, do you think that these parties capable of standing against the policies of Washington in Germany, or they're not that capable?   Doctorow: Well, we will see in the elections in February, to what extent they are capable of winning over a substantial portion of the electorate, sufficient enough for the cordon sanitaire that the centrist parties have built around the AFD to prevent it centering the government. I have to say, I'm not very happy that Elon Musk is throwing his money and his prestige behind the AfD. And I would have been much happier if he had backed the leftist candidate, Sahra Wagenknecht and her party, which is, I think, much cleaner than the AfD. For me, the AfD has one particular drawback. What we've been living through for the last 15, 20 years has been a new generation thinking within Germany about collective guilt and collective responsibility. And it was precisely the Alternative for Deutschland that raised this issue and made it a public issue, that of refusing to accept guilt, responsibility, for what the grandfathers, the Hitler generation had perpetrated in Europe and the destruction of European Jewry. It's understandable that they would like to see statute of limitations for this responsibility, but regrettably I cannot support that. And regrettably, the decisions that Germany has made under Scholz indicate that there are the same weak points of utter conformism and pursuit of policies that are self-destructive and a unwillingness to heed the voice of conscience in the question of Israel's genocide in Gaza. These issues raise for me a question of national guilt in present-day Germany. And lest anyone think that I am being unfair or unreasonable, I extend the same logic to the United States of America. The whole American nation now bears collective responsibility or collective guilt for the genocide in Gaza. Those who are not protesting against it in the streets, those who are not finding ways of civil disobedience or whatever to express their utter dislike, their utter contempt for the politicians who are facilitating that genocide -- this leaves the whole country with a kind of collective guilt. I do not believe, I am not a subscriber, to "woke" principles. I personally reject the notion of responsibility of anyone living today for what great grandfathers, for what people 150 years ago did or didn't do. I think that is unreasonable. But we all have responsibility for what we do or don't do. And that's where I say, I'm not happy with the AfD, and I'm not happy with the American political, or the American voters today for their silence, relative silence on the disaster being perpetrated in their name by the Biden administration's support, unqualified support for Israeli aggression.   Alkhorshid:  Yeah. Thank you so much, Gilbert, for being with us today. Great pleasure as always.   Doctorow: I thank you for the opportunity to express some unusual news.

[AndreasHG]

3 hours ago, mokwit said:

you are maybe overestimating effect e.g. Russia's 'New Model Army' has not performed as well as expected, but it is still an effective fighting force.

 

I understand you have opinions, and that's okay. These are the facts:

1. Russia was supposed to liquidate Ukraine in a "Special Military Operation" lasting few days. They are still stuck ina a war after 3 years, with no way to win it.
   In 2022 the Global Firepower Index ranked the Russian military capabilities second behind the United States, the Ukrainian 22nd, behind the like of Australia (17) and Taiwan (21).
   Western weapons supplied in the aftermath of the attack were essential in allowing Ukraine to hold out for so long. But it is the embarrassing performance of the amateurish and poorly led and organized Russian army in the very first weeks of the conflict that left an indelible memory.
   https://www.globalfirepower.com/global-ranks-previous.php
    
2. The Russian made air defense system (S-300) deployed in Iran was easily and effortlessly neutralized by the Israeli Air Force F-35s, before it could even fire a single missile, leaving Israel free to hit any target on Iranian soil at will.
   The S-300 performed so poorly that has become a joke in western military circles.
   https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-strike-on-iran-took-out-radar-sets-to-guide-ballistic-missiles-report/
    
3. While Russia is busy fighting in Ukraine, it's military capabilities proved so thin that Siria Bashar al-Assad has been left out in the cold, with no military assistance, despite his family has been a reliable allied of the Soviet Union first, and then of Russia, for over 50 years, and despite all of the Russian money and resources spent, in these fifty years, to support the Syrian Al-Assad family.

Now, put yourself in the shoes of a dictator who relies on Russia to prop up his unpopular regime against internal and external foes. What kind of conclusion would you draw?

It's a conclusion on which your life and the life of your family depend.

 

My conclusion based on facts is that Russia military might proved to be just another Potemkin Village. 

 

[Lacessit]

Let's say Russia rolls up Ukrainian forces as far as Kyiv, and declares victory. It then faces a partisan movement operating from the Carpathians, armed with Javelins and Stingers to bring down any Russian aircraft attacking them.

 

Much like Afghanistan before, Ukraine will become a bleeding sore for which Russia has no remedy.

 

 

[candide]

16 hours ago, marquess said:

Isn't the UK in a recession, and Gemany deindustrialising due to engery  costs? Without cheap Russian gas  Europe is economically on very thin ice. US LNG is three times the price. Zelensky has refused to renew the 5 year transit deal that earned his $800m per year. The Russians turned off the gas through Ukraine on 1st Jan, this will result in a 5% loss of overal European gas supplies. Here are a plethora  of links to stories about Russia out stripping Germany in terms of purchains power and become the 5th largest economy in the world. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Russia+outstrips+Germany+economically&t=h_&ia=web

Yet PPP is not relevant to compare the economic power of countries, as it's not real money.

In real money, it ranks 11th, with a GDP level close to Italy.

On top of it, the recent GDP growth is artificial as it has been fueled by military expenses, while the civil economy was declining.

 

As I wrote before, Russia waited to have accumulated enough foreign currency reserves, and also that price of energy increased, before starting the invasion, so it would be able to finance it. In the current situation, the foreign currency reserve is declining and the price of energy is on a decreasing trend, so Russia won't be able to finance a war at the same level as before. (I am not even mentioning inflation, the impact of sanctions, etc...)

[mokwit]

23 hours ago, AndreasHG said:

Russia was supposed to liquidate Ukraine in a "Special Military Operation" lasting few days. They are still stuck ina a war after 3 years, with no way to win it.

Why has Ukraine not won after 3 years then?

23 hours ago, AndreasHG said:

The Russian made air defense system (S-300) deployed in Iran was easily and effortlessly neutralized by the Israeli Air Force F-35s, before it could even fire a single missile

Are they using F35's in Ukraine?

[mokwit]

Any news on the situation in Kurakhovo?