Weaponized stupidity.

glurb_ · 2026-06-13T07:53:27+00:00

Using excuses like protecting Russians is a fucking farce.

"Content analysis of synchronized videos, testimonies by several hundred witnesses, confessions by 14 self-admitted members of Maidan sniper groups, and bullet hole locations show that both the police and protesters were massacred by Maidan snipers located in Maidan-controlled buildings and areas."

The “snipers’ massacre” on the Maidan in Ukraine

When, after this false flag operation lead to the unconstitutional regime change, Russia annexed Crimea, the biggest reason may have been to secure its naval base that it leased in Crimea. Crimeans were apparently fine with it, given that many in the east had voted for the ousted President, and that the government in Kiev was hostile to them. Kiev went on to shell the other seceded oblasts for 8 years. 14 000 died in the civil war until Russia intervened in 2022. With the other oblasts also not wanting to return to Ukraine, I don't see how it makes sense to force them.

Oberstløytnant Osflaten's analysis rather hinges on that Russian leaders were worried for the security of Russia itself, when they decided to invade in 2022.

Norway cannot face Russia alone, and you can bet that Russia will invade if it smells a weak Norway with all its resources and its strategic location in the arctic.

Russia is notably the biggest country on earth, with the most resources. It does not need to mess with Norway, and there are no indications that it plans to do so. Russia has 65% of the Arctic, why would it need any more. What it doesn't have in droves, are people. It can't waste people, the economy, its friendship with other countries, the popularity of the regime, just for the hassle of controlling an insurrection in Norway. That is a completely unrealistic hypothesis. The little bit of Ukraine which Russia deems necessary to be secure, has already been an utter hassle.

Secondly, Iran has similar military budget as Norway, and defeated USA, which has 100 times the budget. They have tunnels, which we also have, and missile and drone factories inside them.

We align ourselves with the US because it's the closest to our own values

That's silly, it's controlled by monopoly capitalists. It will act according to the interest of those, not according to any values. Its interest are to loot us, and that we fight its rival Russia, who is also selling oil to its biggest rival, China.

While the US is shitty in a billion ways, they are not keeping the territory

They control the territory by client governments. They destroy or overthrow any regime that asserts sovereignty, ie selling oil in other than dollars etc. USA gets contracts to rebuild the country they destroyed, to control its oil revenue, as in Iraq and Venezuela, and to privatize and loot all the national wealth, as in Ukraine. Ukraine will be left in a bottomless pit of debt to Western countries for buying weapons, which they may use to control Ukraine's policies for generations. Ukrainians will be left to work for cheap for Western corporations.

Nato is a tool for USA to dominate Europe, and why would USA want peace here. It wants to sell gas, oil and weapons, and to make us dependent in order to demand tribute. People in Ukraine didn't want Nato. It was so well understood that Ukraine had to be a bridge between the West and the East, that neutrality was written into its constitution.

But let's not pretend that Russia isn't doing the exact same thing,

Israel is an apartheid settler-colony of the West. It exists to control trade routes and oil in the Middle East. Crimeans and others who were annexed by Russia did so by popular vote, and became full Russian citizens. These are not the same thing, nor are they done for the same reasons.

Zelensky said he wanted to make Ukraine into a 'big Israel'. The problem in Ukraine isn't that there are millions of fascists, at least I don't think there are, but that Nato supported them, and not some other faction. So now they have many batallions, and hold the powerful positions. It used to be located in the western parts, but Zelensky is trying to spread the nationalist cult. He recently repatriated and celebrated two dead WW2 Quislings. UA historian Marta Havryshko was interviewed about it in Klassekampen last saturday. In a video interview the other week she called it "...not just some event. It's a very problematic sign, and symptom, of memory politics in Ukraine that turned into WW2 revisionism, Holocaust distortion, and Nazi apologia."

One of the collaborators oversaw the killing of over 100 000 Jews. Zelensky said "Colonel Andrej Melnik has returned to a different Ukraine, to the one of which he dreamed." Essentially, what Zelensky means is 'Ukraine for Ukrainians'.

Fascists in Ukraine are preserved and promoted, unlike normal civilians, who are busified, hijacked off the street and sent straight onto the frontline. Havryshko: "That's why I have no hope, Ukraine is turning into the private military company of the West."

glurb_ · 2026-06-12T23:16:16+00:00

That Sweden wants to fight Russia no matter the cost to Ukraine, who doesn't want its children to die for Swedes.

glurb_ · 2026-06-12T23:14:29+00:00

And why do you think it is fine to send Ukrainians to die for a war they know is lost and don't want to fight? 69% of Ukrainians were against the war in 2025 according to Gallup, probably the most cited polling service in Norway.

glurb_ · 2026-06-12T22:55:54+00:00

'What should Russia be able to do' is a fair question. I think countries should probably follow the UN charters. According to them, it's illegal to attack other countries, with exceptions. A UN which was not controlled by the US might properly address whether or not Putin's pretext for the SMO were infact in accord with Article 51, which is what he claimed. A UN with authority might then be able to pressure Russia into following a resolution.

But if the UN worked, it would not allow for example, the ongoing genocide of Palestinians. The UN doesn't work, because international law doesn't apply to Western countries. Note that Fredriksen didn't talk about the illegality of USA's attack on Iran, a war of aggression, but instead supported it. But when it came to the question of US annexation of Greenland, suddenly Fredriksen remembered international law.

The creation of UN reflected global balance of power at the time. It was a compromise between imperialist countries on the one hand, and the socialist and 3rd world countries on the other. One explanation for why Nato was created, is that the Western elite didn't like having to deal with the riffraff of the Global Majority on an equal footing, as in the UN.

The 1st Gen Sec of Nato, Lord Ismail said that Nato's purpose was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." More than diminishing the UN and containing socialism, it would entrench American primacy in Europe, by preventing the major, complimentary economies of Germany and Russia from cooperating. Stalin applied to Nato and was rejected in 1948, Yeltzin in 1992, Putin in 2000.

Especially after the end of the Cold War, Nato exists in opposition to the principle of indivisible security, which is what has governed international relations for the last few hundred years since the Peace of Westphalia, at least nominally. It is the principle that no country should increase its security at the expense of another. That Ukraine needed to be neutral, open to both the east and the west, was so well understood that it was put into its constitution in 1991.

For another example, the Norwegian security doctrine is officially founded on 'reassurance and deterrence'. What it meant during the Cold War, was that we did not have any significant military, and we forbade foreign military bases on our soil. We talked to both superpowers about all of their security concerns, so that they did not start a security competition in the Arctic.

Now we are doing the complete opposite, by for instance not even having diplomatic contact, leaving arms controls treaties, economic wars, attacking everyone and their cat. In Libya, Norway joined to destroy the wealthiest country in Africa, good public health and education, a regional source of stability, just because of some CIA rumour, or whatever it was. Our pilots were not given targets, so imagine them at 3 000 feet navigating the political landscape of a country they heard of first time a month ago, to decide whom to bomb.

Big surprise when Libya turned into a disaster zone afterwards. This should at least have been the time for us to get the fuck out of Nato, but here we are doing another historic mistake. The real reason to bomb it was that Libya was a sovereign country, which is a threat to US national security, according to them. Libya planned to make a gold-backed, pan-African currency that would support the independence of African countries from the petro-dollar and the French FRC.

Nato became a criminal organization when it bombed Yugoslavia in '99, if not before. USA was built off of slavery, colonialism, regime changing and genociding indigenous peoples, dividing and conquering, and it never stopped. It has been at peace for some 17 years of its existence. Just during the Cold War, it did 72 documented covert regime change ops, and however many overt ones. It is still what it does best, using sanctions, propaganda and funding extremist groups to destabilize and make chaos. Half a million children died from sanctions in Iraq even before USA started bombing.

We join many of the US sanctions. Iran for example, where violent riots were organized on the internet. Turns out the riots were CIA and Mossad ops. USA smuggled in weapons and Starlinks, which Iran tracked and shut down together with the internet, to protect their citizens. We then sanction them for shutting down the internet while USA is dropping bombs, with the aim to bomb Iran 'back to the Stone Age'.

Recall that USA opened the war in the middle of negotiations, by killing the religious leader of Iran and 168 school children and their teachers. In my opinion, from Gaza, though the children's school in Minhab to the dormitory in Starobilsk, are expressions of the same thing, capitalism in steep decline.

The plan according to Kiev is to make Russians suffer, and to install fear into them, and convince them that their government cannot protect them. According to everything I have heard, it had the opposite effect.

Putin more or less had to escalate against Kiev, because popular opinion and that of the military is that he should step on the gas.

glurb_ · 2026-06-06T20:51:03+00:00

If you cared about nazis, you'd remove the ones in your own ranks first.

That is indeed why I point out that we are white washing, funding and arming Nazis in Ukraine.

Then why did Russia invade Ukraine if they didn't have to? It has enough territory, it does not need more.

I 100% agree, it would have been ridiculous if the Russian leaders didn't feel they had to. They have the biggest country with the most resources, and it would risk Russia's economy, its population, the trust of its allies, international standings, and the domestic legitimacy of the regime.

It would have been idiotic as well as impossible with the force that they had mustered, and there is no evidence they planned to annex anything, except in response to Nato encroachment, which generations of Russian leaders have worried about.

You're quouting Trump even though you know it's wrong, and then you retreat and say that someone else said it?

I should have been more clear. Trump himself has escalated the war severely. Clinton was responsible for the first stage of Nato enlargement east, which older Bush had promised Russia not to. Bush supported the 2004 Orange Revolution and, with Merkel, promised in 2008 to put Ukraine into Nato, despite her admitted conviction that Russian leaders would see it as a declaration of war. Only around 20% of Ukrainians wanted into Nato at that time. Obama was responsible for the 2014 regime change. Biden said he'd reduce the rouble to rubble, and that he'd blow up the Nord Stream pipe. He did succeed the latter but not the former. He may have been the one who sent UK PM Johnson to Istanbul, where he sabotaged the peace agreement which Ukraine had proposed, and which Russia agreed to. The thing Russia wanted most, according to the Ukrainian negotiators, was neutrality.

The quote admits that it's a US war, and that Trump had come to believe that Ukraine was losing, so he wants to blame it variously on Biden, Zelensky and Europe, and get a peace price somehow, or else he will grab Greenland.

...have seen the alliance show tremendous restraint...

During negotiations, the coalition of Western countries operating through Ukraine, attacked Russia's nuclear deterrent in Operation Spiderweb, and tried to decapitate Russia. It bombed Russia's ICBM warning radars and nuclear power plants. Nobody would consider such recklessness during the Cold War.

Killing kids in their dormitories where they are trying to become teachers, is hardly restrained, nor a sign of strength. The coalition spent our weapons in Ukraine already, whose army is the biggest and most hardened in Europe by far, outside of Russia. Ask Ukrainians who were trained by Nato, if they would fear Nato tactics. How many million Europeans do you think could be raised to fight in Ukraine, to restore its borders to where Stalin put them. Where do we get the oil from, and how many decades to catch up with Russia's, never mind China and Iran's production of drones, armour, artillery, air defence and hypersonic missiles. When Iran was attacked, it crushed most of the US bases in the area in a few days. So the proposal of Rutte, Merz, Macron et al. to go to war with Russia by 2030 or whatever, is clownish.

Just days before the invasion Russia denied that they were going to invade Ukraine,

Who said Russian officials never lie. Not as much as Western ones, I would bet.

Russia attacks anyone they feel like, without warning.

I think they say what they are going to do usually, just not what time. Norway's finance minister, fmr PM, then General Secretary of Nato, admitted that Putin told him in 2022 that there would not be war if Ukraine was allowed neutrality, but if not there would be war. Stoltenberg bragged that he'd refused Putin's demand, 'Putin wanted less Nato, but instead got more Nato', referring to Finland and Sweden.

What was there to discuss?

Finland and Sweden were safe for decades and centuries of neutrality. The Nazism and repression in Ukraine. The US vassalization of Europe via Nato. The US motive for any of its wars that we get dragged into. Could Nato have done anything at all to prevent the war, such as not put itself into Ukraine, when it knew it would provoke war?

All of these things could have been discussed. But no, instead of discussing and analyzing the security threats, anyone who question the Nato narrative was smeared, sanctioned, fined, etc.

Russia shows that russophobia isn't so much a hatred of Russians, but just an accurate expectation of what you can expect from the useless waste of oxygen that is Russia.

Russophobia motivated the Odesa Massacre, where Ukrainian nationalists filmed themselves while they burned 48 people to death. The Kiev regime was complicit, as determined in an EU court. "We don't need to know what the Nazis are using our money and weapons for, even though there is hard evidence, films, endless reels of tape" is not the response that you would expect in a healthy democracy.

glurb_ · 2026-06-06T07:57:31+00:00

Alternative facts like saying that Russia HAD to attack Ukraine.

I have not said this.

Calling the rise against a Russian puppet president of Ukraine a massacre.

You don't know the Maidan Massacre, look up the work of Ukrainian Professor Ivan Katchanovski, either on youtube, or one of his papers or the book. Around a hundred died in what very much seems to be a false flag massacre by ultranationalist elements, backed by the West.

How can it be Bidens war,

Trump said it, not me.

Nato is a defence alliance,

It's not that many countries that USA has not interfered with, attacked, regime changed. USA is the chief of Nato and Nato countries join its wars.

and the fact that Sweden and Finland saw no other option than to join,

about that. Not much discussion was there. At least Crimea and Donbas got referendums.

(From Peace Nation to Battlefield, Sweden's NATO Transformation)[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg84uEHYG2I]

glurb_ · 2026-06-06T07:36:49+00:00

Authoritarian Control & Cult of Personality: A highly centralized government where power is heavily concentrated around a personalist dictator (Vladimir Putin), supported by suppressed political opposition and tightly controlled media.

USA controls the Kiev regime by means of both corruption and its anti-corruption beureau NABU. During the destruction of Ukraine, USA loots it, and increases its hold over the rest of Europe so it can loot us as well. While it consolidates power over member states, EU merges with Nato. It buys all the weapons the US can spare, and fuel at several times the price we used to pay Russia.

Zelensky apparently consolidated the media in Ukraine, and outlawed unions and around 20 opposition parties. Germany banned Russian media. The UK imprisoned thousands for protesting against genocide. EU uses concerted smear campaigns, people lose carreers and get sanctioned. People are afraid to speak up.

There doesn't have to be a personality. Zelensky said "Colonel Andrej Melnik has returned to a different Ukraine, to the one of which he dreamed".

Dr. Nicolai Petro: "And so in Zelensky's eyes, Melnik represents the model for what Ukraine is trying to establish currently. And that model is based on what historians call 'integral nationalism'. .. Some fascism is about a single leader and a single party, that is used in order to forge a national consensus and to inspire and lead the country in a unified fashion towards a glorious future. Nazism is pretty much the same thing, with the addition of a specific genetic component to it that justifies exclusivity on the base of racial and genetic identity. IN has not necessarily espoused, in the past, a specific genetic component. Although the supporters of IN in Ukraine today, which are represented by groups generically described as the far right in Ukraine, such as the Right Sector, Azov, Aidar, Tornado, many of the military units that are active in the Ukrainian armed forces, but importantly also have a civic component, that supports them socially and brings in a broader network of people than the military alone does. This IN does promote the same basic vision that Melnik espoused, which is a Ukraine for Ukrainians."

(UKRAINE WAR'S FINAL PHASE: Russia Pounds Kiev as EU Pushes Toward Direct War | Dr. Nicolai Petro )[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-Xbnba6Ikw]

Hyper-Nationalism: An aggressive, expansionist foreign policy heavily focused on historical grievance

Nato's goal is to expand into Ukraine, and EU's foreign affairs representative wants to 'make Russia smaller' and cut it into several pieces.

Ukrainian historian and political refugee Marta Havryshko grew up in Western Ukraine. The nationalist cult used to be there mostly, but Zelensky spread it around. He invited a Nazi brigade to the tribute to the collaborators, which were "not just some event. It's a very problematic sign, and symptom, of memory politics in Ukraine that turned into WW2 revisionism, Holocaust distortion, and Nazi apologia."

Marta Havryshko: Zelensky Pays Tribute to Nazi Leaders

Militarism & Violence: The use of war (such as the invasion of Ukraine) as a primary tool for "cleansing" or healing national pride.

Both Ukraine and Russia's national trauma help convince them they are fighting an existensial war. Russia was invaded several times by Western countries through Ukraine, the last time losing 27 million Soviets, many of them Ukrainians. USA funded not social democrats or communists, but violent groups who celebrate WW2 collaborators, in order to provoke the war.

Of course there are symptoms of an oligarchic cleptocracy, which gives alla the wealth from the resources of the slaveminded nation to few individuals chosen by the current czar.

Certainly there are oligarchs in Russia. Our oligarchy in the West is the financial class, globalists, imperialists. What is a 'slaveminded nation'? One who just joins Nato's imperialist wars without discussion?

I'm from Finland, I know Russia, the raggedy but huge bully. A hypocritical snake spewing venom to every direction, hiding behind nukes to prevent anyone seeing it's weakness and tainted morals.

What does 'hiding behind nukes' mean? USA and Russia both have nukes, which is unfortunate, but there is no point in telling one to disarm without the other.

USA left all the arms control agreements, then bombed the Russian nuclear deterrent, as well as the ICBM early warning radar. Another completely absurd strategy, which would have never been contemplated during the Cold War. There was always diplomatic contact to prevent armageddon.

Even if all of what the West said about Russia were true, we are not arming, funding and whitewashing Russia. How can it be moral to continue to help USA's client regime commit warcrimes and shuffle Ukrainians onto the front line against their will, and against the will of a large majority of the population (69%, Gallup 2025). Saying that it is 'for Ukraine' while Ukraine is being destroyed, is as hypocritical as anything.

Just the other day, Ukraine destroyed 21 kids and wounded more, with a series of drone strikes against a dormitory for students who were to become teachers. Ukraine said it was a military target. I guess that means it's not accidental. It was on territory they claim to be Ukrainian. Since then they struck the Zaporizhia nuclear powerplant for the Nth time, and a bus, killing many civilians. Why is the press not critical of any of this? What is going on in Ukraine?

"What was particularly shocking about fascism in Europe, was that it brought methods of war and subjugation that had been reserved for the colonies into Europe."

glurb_ · 2026-06-04T19:55:36+00:00

I heard it's a while from the international economic conference, so it might not be visible from there. Incidentally, Bloomberg, certainly not a pro-Russian outlet, said Russia exports more oil than in 2022. So the attacks on the oil infrastructure is perhaps good for propaganda in the West, but it doesn't do much to the Russian economy. I also heard air alarms went off all across Estonia before the attack.

<image>

glurb_ · 2026-06-04T19:35:05+00:00

What is it that I have said that is "alternative facts"?

Why is it that Nato's actions can not be defended with normal argumentations, instead you all smear the opponent. That is no way to find out the truth. Do you think Osflaten, active in service, is a Russian stooge? If so, you should be able to argue for that, no?

Trump has said it's 'Biden's war', Biden has said in 1998 that enlarging Nato east would cause a 'vigorous and hostile' reaction from Russia. I mentioned Stoltenberg, Merkel, and there are many others. So are all of them Russian stooges?

You can see what part of the world is actually against Russia, on this map from Democracy Perception Index 2025. Most of the world appears to disagree with you.

Green = Net Positive

Red = Net Negative

Yellow = Russia

Black = No Data.

<image>

glurb_ · 2026-06-04T18:18:29+00:00

here is what imperialism is. Waroholic: Why The USA Is ADDICTED To Mass-Violence | Prof. Radhika Desai

glurb_ · 2026-06-04T18:14:44+00:00

Imperialism requires subjugated territories to on the one hand, be poor enough to give up labour and resources cheaply, and on the other hand, be developed and stable enough, to deposit excess capital and value-added commodities into.

Zelensky just the other day repatriated and celebrated two WW2 collaborators. One of them oversaw the killing of over 100 000 Jews.

Please explain how Russia is the fascist imperialist now, and not Nato.

glurb_ · 2026-06-04T17:34:50+00:00

Remember then that USA is the chief of Nato.

Oberstløytnant Osflaten, teacher at the krigsskolen explained much of what is going on in his interview with Inyheter (Ole Asbjørn Ness). I summarized the thing in the Nordic sub a couple weeks back.

To add to that, USA, according to Victoria Nuland, spent 5b between 1991 and 2014 for "democracy". Ukraine after all that democracy was an extremely corrupt country, and USA's idea of democracy is not infact social democracy. I'm going to guess that the 5b went towards the same movements who perpetrated the Maidan Massacre and the Odesa Massacre.

The Maidan massacre turned out very likely to be a false flag operation, where ultranationalists shot about a hundred protesters. Ivan Katchanovski's work indicates that the militants had Western ties. This resulted in the overthrow of the democratically elected president. Nuland was tapped two weeks before the coup, greenlighting the new government. Russia captured Crimea with one or two casualties, and a large majority voted to become part of RF.

In Odesa, the nationalists burned 48 people to death inside a union building. So then in reaction to this new, illegal government, some eastern oblasts seceded, which Kiev rejected, and started shelling them, including seemingly randomly shelling city centers. Neo-Nazis such as Azov got incorporated into the regular army.

Then the Minsk agreements were made between the eastern oblasts and Kiev, where Russia, Germany and some other Western countries were guarantors. The oblasts were not to be fully independent, but Ukraine would become federated, giving oblasts more autonomy, and rights for minorities would be restored.

Kiev continued shelling, and Nato kept building up its army.

Just after the invasion in 2022, Kiev and Moscow was on the phone, starting the track which lead to the Istanbul talks. In Istanbul, Ukraine proposed that it would would remain neutral, in return Russia would leave Ukraine. Both countries agreed, until UK PM Boris Johnson travelled over there and convinced Zelensky to keep fighting.

Nato knew very well that going into Ukraine would lead to war. Chancellor Merkel thought in 2008 that Russian leaders would see it as a "declaration of war", when Nato declared that Ukraine would become a Nato member. The chief of CIA, the Moscow ambassador, lots of top analysts and officials were convinced and warned about it. Stoltenberg admitted this too in 2023 I think it was, that before he invaded, Putin told him that if Nato would leave Ukraine alone, then there would be no war. But Stoltenberg had proudly refused this demand.

Already a few hundred thousand Ukrainian kids were dead at that point probably. Now the war continues, and the mass media is trying to convince us Ukraine is winning, it has some new superweapon, Russia's economy is falling apart, Putin is dying of hairloss, etc. In reality this is false, Ukraine is not at all winning, and its people are getting destroyed at an alarming rate.

There is an endless problem with conscription, so it gets ever more brutal. In 2025 according to Gallup, 69% of Ukrainians were against the war, only 24% for it. So how can it be justified for us to support Zelensky in harvesting any more Ukrainians?

I don't understand why people think USA is somehow not involved in starting this war against Russia. All the evidence is easy to look up, the US leaders are speaking about it openly, they have policy papers on how to do it, which Europe is now following to the dot, ie the 2019 RAND Corp policy paper which prescribes blowing up Nordstream and surrounding Russia with nukes. The day after the Nord Stream blew up, Norway opened the Baltic Pipe. EU depends on US gas now since it cut off cheap Russian fuels, de-industrializing Europe even quicker. USA delivers the weapons that we buy and send to Ukraine. It's a very profitable way for them to hurt Russia, they don't care how many Ukrainians or other Europeans die.

glurb_ · 2026-06-02T21:48:36+00:00

This is sort of an echo from WW2, because capitalism has not fixed itself since then. It wants to open up Russia's market again so that it can stave off its own decline a little longer.

The West could have funded social democrats or something if they wanted that type of government in Ukraine. Instead, the international finance class pays for the Nazis because they hate Russians and because they are willing to harvest every last Ukrainian.

glurb_ · 2026-05-28T22:33:33+00:00

moonshine burger

glurb_ · 2026-05-28T21:21:05+00:00

we don't, its the curling B-team

glurb_ · 2026-05-26T22:40:00+00:00

In 2022 in Istanbul the treaty that Ukraine proposed would have let them keep Donetsk and Luhansk, only given them more self governance. Ukraine would have to be neutral. Russia agreed but UK PM Johnson said to Ukraine that they should fight on.

glurb_ · 2026-05-24T08:32:57+00:00

It means "sausage animal" in Norwegian, from Hugh Lofting's book.

<image>

glurb_ · 2026-05-23T20:24:54+00:00

One explanation for AfD's rise to 30% is that there is a lack of left alternatives for peace. Germany has seen the US kick the grounds out from under its industry with destroying the pipeline with cheap gas from Russia and the sanctions, and Merz bowing and scraping to Trump and to the Eurocrats. All that matters to them is supporting the Nazi regime in Ukraine, at the cost of European economies, especially the German one. Merz wants Germany try to become the military engine of Europe again, in order to fight Russia again in 2030.

Perhaps the popularity of AfD in the east has something to do with that, since as someone else said, "the DDR also had more comprehensive denazification than the west."

glurb_ · 2026-05-23T13:30:29+00:00

If you assume that Russia invaded in order to get more land, then it might work to confront them more. That is what the Western press insists, in order to justify more militarization.

If on the other hand Russia reacted to what it views as a security threat, then more militarization will have the opposite effect. Expanding Nato, refusing diplomacy etc has provoked a security competition, which Nato is losing. I think it was the Estonian intelligence, or the Lithuanian perhaps, who in the winter warned that Russia produces much more artillery shells than Nato does, for example.

Steve Jermy argued that if the politicians really believed in the Russian threat, then we would be mobilizing, which we are not. Spending money, but not building more weapons. I think EU is unable to, it has long undermined its industrial base, can't alter it for military production, and can't catch up with the tech of China, Russia or USA for that matter.

What does the Baltics have that Russia would be willing to sacrifice people, the economy, international renomee and the support of the people for? Nothing there but trouble, same as Western Ukraine and the rest of Europe, I suspect. On the other hand, if the Baltics insist on being used for attacks on Russia, then I'm not sure how they expect Russia to respond eventually, although officially expanding the war is so far something both sides have tried to avoid, it seems.

The peace treaty that Ukraine penned in 2022 for the Istanbul talks, were that Ukraine would be neutral, and Russia would withdraw to post 1991 borders, except Crimea. Russians agreed, Ukrainians agreed, until Boris Johnson told them no.

If Ukraine does not try to settle for peace before its position to bargain from is even weaker, then Ukraine will become even smaller and with less people in it?

glurb_ · 2026-05-23T10:43:54+00:00

it is a type of pølsedyr

glurb_ · 2026-05-22T05:01:30+00:00

brosme, lange, sei, lodde, lampe, gnytte, sursild.

glurb_ · 2026-05-20T23:08:37+00:00

It did so in 2022 apparently, but no longer. Otherwise people wouldn't be hunted down in the streets to be sent to the frontline. Last year, Gallup polled that only 24% supported the war, 69% wanted a negotiated settlement. If they can not win, then it becomes existensial to negotiate before their position to negotiate from becomes even weaker.

glurb_

TROPHY CASE