Russia is strategically bleeding America & Europe- the "west" out, so they can't initiate or fight a wider war.
AND
Russia & China know the western financial system is nearing the point of implosion.
They know when the western financial system collapses America & the west no longer have the ability to wage any war, aside from nuclear war- which would see the west completely destroyed.
Russia is trying to manage the collapse of the west while avoiding a wider war.
Of course this scenario is virtually impossible for 95+% of brainwashed "westerners" to even consider.
But that doesn't change the reality.
I write this as an expat who was living in Ukraine when the SMO started. I have never been to Russia and have no connections to Russia.
I simply gather information from a wide variety of sources and recognize realities that are hidden from the wage/tax/debt slaves of the west.
I'm well aware of the "bleeding." But the Middle East is now lost. And this will have impact on the upcoming US-China war. If Iran is bombed extensively by the US, China will lose access to Middle East war and be forced to rely on Russian oil, which may not be sufficient. There is NO guarantee that the US economy will collapse before either a conventional or nuclear war occurs.
The point is that could have been avoided and additional bleeding could have occurred to the US in a conflict with the Axis of Resistance. Now that won't happen.
All the analysts recognize that the loss of the Middle East is a major strategic defeat for Russia and China.
You may be correct in your conclusions, at least some of them.
I think it is very difficult to be sure because we don't have all the facts available, the alternatives available to the actors and the opportunity costs, etc.
I will provide an example based on you refocus on "“The Omega Concept”, which is the background to the notion of “The Five Essentials” (which, you may recall, are Philosophy, Attitude, Knowledge, Skills, and Technology.)"
The Knowledge of the age-cohort demographic of Ukraine (coupled with the difficult to know numbers of Ukrainians of various ages that have fled to Russia, Europe and North America) is the reason why the Ukrainians did not conscript men before the age of (about) 25, until recently. There is a shortage of men ~25+/-2, and these are among the men whose sperm is needed to father replacements for all the Ukrainians killed in the war. There is a large deficit in young men between the age of 18 and 22.
If you know post-USSR history, you know that the societal chaos led to great poverty, starvation, increased suicide etc. during the late 1990s and early 2000 decade. Birthrates plummeted. Intelligent Nationalist Ukrainians know that to have a Nation, you need to avoid sacrificing your breeding stock for the Global Hegemon, so they have resisted the call of their US paymasters and the EU patsies to "fight to the last Ukrainian".
I provide the above example to illustrate that facts you not know may explain the actions, or inactions, you decry. If one's own experience is only the US Selective Service Draft it would be logical to assume that a nation going to war would conscript 18 year olds and up. But this assumption is based on incomplete knowledge (in this case, how the Ukraine demographics differ from the other examples you know about).
Note the 18 to 25 cohort has the smallest number of people in the chart, here:
The simple reply to that notion is that Ukraine should have known better than to attack a country several times larger than itself. The only reason you don't send fighting age young men to war is if you know you're going to lose.
The other problem is that Ukraine, as you noted, has had a population decline even before the war occurred. They went down from 40 million or more down to 30 even before the war. Now they're down to 20 million. And most of those were the young men who would have been available to fight the war. Which makes it even more ridiculous that Ukraine would enter the war in the first place.
The bottom line: If you're going to fight a war, you send all available fighting age men. Otherwise you lose.
As I quoted Burrough, "Battles are meant to be fought, and this is what happens when you lose."
Thanks Richard, glad to have you back writing and I look forward to the AI tools writeups.
I share your frustration on how Russia and Iran played so weak in Syria. Such cowardice never wins in the long run. All it may have taken would have been to bomb and attack the US bases in E. Syria and retake those areas for the Syrian government back in the summer of 2023 or '24. Surely the combined forces of Russia and Iran could have pulled that off. The US under Biden would have screamed and probably bombed Iran in response, but that is coming anyways, and the resulting mess would have pulled resources away from project Ukraine.
Putin lacks boldness. Erdogan has it and that is why he prevailed in Syria.
Even if Russia and Iran hadn't bombed the US bases, they could have continued to bomb the Idlib province, regardless of any Turkish military presence. If Turkey tried to fight back, Putin could have simply called up Erdogan and told him to remember that Russia was a nuclear power and that NATO wouldn't come to Erdogan's aid if he got into trouble with Russia. Risky - but Putin also had other options to hurt Turkey economically as well. He could have made Erdogan back down so Syria could recover Idlib. He could also have made a deal with Erdogan to aid Turkey in dealing with the Kurdish terrorist groups near the US bases without necessarily getting directly involved against the US forces there.
You are missing the most important piece.
Russia is strategically bleeding America & Europe- the "west" out, so they can't initiate or fight a wider war.
AND
Russia & China know the western financial system is nearing the point of implosion.
They know when the western financial system collapses America & the west no longer have the ability to wage any war, aside from nuclear war- which would see the west completely destroyed.
Russia is trying to manage the collapse of the west while avoiding a wider war.
Of course this scenario is virtually impossible for 95+% of brainwashed "westerners" to even consider.
But that doesn't change the reality.
I write this as an expat who was living in Ukraine when the SMO started. I have never been to Russia and have no connections to Russia.
I simply gather information from a wide variety of sources and recognize realities that are hidden from the wage/tax/debt slaves of the west.
Those Who Forget History... https://www.leftbrainwave.com/2022/11/the-coming-european-economic-apocalypse.html#TOC1d
I'm well aware of the "bleeding." But the Middle East is now lost. And this will have impact on the upcoming US-China war. If Iran is bombed extensively by the US, China will lose access to Middle East war and be forced to rely on Russian oil, which may not be sufficient. There is NO guarantee that the US economy will collapse before either a conventional or nuclear war occurs.
The point is that could have been avoided and additional bleeding could have occurred to the US in a conflict with the Axis of Resistance. Now that won't happen.
All the analysts recognize that the loss of the Middle East is a major strategic defeat for Russia and China.
You may be correct in your conclusions, at least some of them.
I think it is very difficult to be sure because we don't have all the facts available, the alternatives available to the actors and the opportunity costs, etc.
I will provide an example based on you refocus on "“The Omega Concept”, which is the background to the notion of “The Five Essentials” (which, you may recall, are Philosophy, Attitude, Knowledge, Skills, and Technology.)"
The Knowledge of the age-cohort demographic of Ukraine (coupled with the difficult to know numbers of Ukrainians of various ages that have fled to Russia, Europe and North America) is the reason why the Ukrainians did not conscript men before the age of (about) 25, until recently. There is a shortage of men ~25+/-2, and these are among the men whose sperm is needed to father replacements for all the Ukrainians killed in the war. There is a large deficit in young men between the age of 18 and 22.
If you know post-USSR history, you know that the societal chaos led to great poverty, starvation, increased suicide etc. during the late 1990s and early 2000 decade. Birthrates plummeted. Intelligent Nationalist Ukrainians know that to have a Nation, you need to avoid sacrificing your breeding stock for the Global Hegemon, so they have resisted the call of their US paymasters and the EU patsies to "fight to the last Ukrainian".
I provide the above example to illustrate that facts you not know may explain the actions, or inactions, you decry. If one's own experience is only the US Selective Service Draft it would be logical to assume that a nation going to war would conscript 18 year olds and up. But this assumption is based on incomplete knowledge (in this case, how the Ukraine demographics differ from the other examples you know about).
Note the 18 to 25 cohort has the smallest number of people in the chart, here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine
One's certainty level should be positively correlated to the extend you have all the accurate background data.
The simple reply to that notion is that Ukraine should have known better than to attack a country several times larger than itself. The only reason you don't send fighting age young men to war is if you know you're going to lose.
The other problem is that Ukraine, as you noted, has had a population decline even before the war occurred. They went down from 40 million or more down to 30 even before the war. Now they're down to 20 million. And most of those were the young men who would have been available to fight the war. Which makes it even more ridiculous that Ukraine would enter the war in the first place.
The bottom line: If you're going to fight a war, you send all available fighting age men. Otherwise you lose.
As I quoted Burrough, "Battles are meant to be fought, and this is what happens when you lose."
Everything else is an excuse.
"So that’s why I no longer care about these conflicts."
Cannot blame you for that. I'm feeling the same. And definitely -- "someone is lying" -- maybe everyone is!
Thanks Richard, glad to have you back writing and I look forward to the AI tools writeups.
I share your frustration on how Russia and Iran played so weak in Syria. Such cowardice never wins in the long run. All it may have taken would have been to bomb and attack the US bases in E. Syria and retake those areas for the Syrian government back in the summer of 2023 or '24. Surely the combined forces of Russia and Iran could have pulled that off. The US under Biden would have screamed and probably bombed Iran in response, but that is coming anyways, and the resulting mess would have pulled resources away from project Ukraine.
Putin lacks boldness. Erdogan has it and that is why he prevailed in Syria.
Even if Russia and Iran hadn't bombed the US bases, they could have continued to bomb the Idlib province, regardless of any Turkish military presence. If Turkey tried to fight back, Putin could have simply called up Erdogan and told him to remember that Russia was a nuclear power and that NATO wouldn't come to Erdogan's aid if he got into trouble with Russia. Risky - but Putin also had other options to hurt Turkey economically as well. He could have made Erdogan back down so Syria could recover Idlib. He could also have made a deal with Erdogan to aid Turkey in dealing with the Kurdish terrorist groups near the US bases without necessarily getting directly involved against the US forces there.
Lots of options never explored.