Hei Glenn! Etter å ha sett den seneste YouTube videon din med Mearsheimer og Mercouris samt nyheter i dagens media har jeg ett spørsmål du kan gruble på:
According to some reports, including comments attributed to U.S. Secretary of State Lloyd Austin, there is speculation that North Korea may be sending troops to support Russia in Ukraine. I am unsure of the accuracy of these claims. However, it has also been suggested that South Korea might be considering sending troops and weapons to Ukraine in response. My question is: how would Russia react if non-NATO U.S. allies, such as South Korea, were to send weapons or personnel to Ukraine? Would Russia treat this differently from NATO countries sending aid? Would Moscow view this as a direct extension of U.S. involvement, or would there be a significant difference due to these countries being outside of NATO? How might this affect Russia's deterrence strategy?
Takk for fantastisk dekning, og for at du står opp og er en tydelig motvekt til dagens orwellianske verden
The US and the EU have long time ago passed the limit. The official US and EU and their public would never have accepted Russia spending billions on arms and aid to an democratic illegitimate coup regime.
The US would not have hesitated like Putin did eight years after the CIA-Nazi coup i 2014, but would have acted consequently. So it is due to Putin´s years of illusions of getting on good terms with his "partners", that the situation has developed to the dangerous level today.
Hopefully Putin has now realised that the US and its allies will go on being aggressive, hostile and undiplomatic until they get installed a puppet regime like the Yeltsin regime that serves their interests.
The US and EU and their mainstream public have clearly only respect for mutual power. They seem to be reflecting for the moment after Putin has finally sent reliable signals to retaliate against the USA and the EU countries if they via their Kiev regime attack Russian cities. But if they go escalating anyway, Putin must go to counterattack against Nato facilities from which deadly weapons against Russia are sent. And probably this is the only way to deter Nato and thus de-escalate the conflict.
I wonder if you could in the future discuss two related issues that perhaps we don't hear enough about:
1. Assuming the "decline of the West" (economic, social, late stage capitalism, etc.) is one the reasons (factors) given for the timing of push towards multipolarism by various countries, what is the current state of this decline and how is it affecting decision making, especially regarding escalation timing, patience, etc.
2. What are the prospects of sufficient economic decline in various Western countries that could result in their populations demanding fundamental changes from their elite regarding foreign policy?
Professor Karaganov's suggestion to the Russian leadership about changing nuclear doctrine to lower the threshold is a sign to me that Russian leading thinkers are out of ideas to deal with rabid dogs barking at them from various directions. Frankly my little hare-brain cannot think of any alternative, either. After all, one cannot reason with rabid dogs. Be prepared to defend yourselves, gentlemen.
GREAT discussion, Glenn! He has a wonderful smile, reminds me of Corbyn - although Corbyn would prefer to scrap nuclear weapons, rather than use them as a deterrent. Of course, the UK doesn't need a deterrence - it needs deterrING.
Glad you got your TB channel back, substack need to have 2x speed and subs for its new video function to actually be useful. (I watched the vid on the Durans channel due to this).
You two nearly always cover all the questions I could think of, and some more to boot, so not much to add. The Western psychos are on the march, and they need a very large stick waved in their face to wake them back up to Reality.
The West is lost in complete fantasies of the 19th Cent and earlier (see: Grees-Moog, F'Rage, Blojo), and combined with Zionazi extremist control of the media and elites, the future looks bleak.
I always wanted to travel to Siberia - but neither to work in a gulag, nor to have to read the bible. "Christianity" is a very large part of the reason why we are in this mess altogether. No Pagan society ever created WMDs...
I also saw your recent interview with Jay Martin. Have you considered the World IS overpopulated by egotistical monkeys, and the rest of Nature could benefit greatly by our numbers falling by at least 90%? Strongly preferably by peaceful means, such as lowered birth rates? "Go forth and populate the World" is a guaranteed path to human extinction and a dead planet. "Before them were forests, behind them they left deserts".
While Orthodox Christianity may not be as bad as what the Romans invented, it still has all the wrong memes that are leading us to destruction.
"Religion" however can be a good bulwark against atomisation through 'extreme liberalism', and communities are essential for humans to be healthy. In that you are right.
WHICH religions, and what flavours however - ahhh, there hangs a tale.
I wonder how much is left of the Siberian shaman and their Pagan religions - enough to spark a revival for the coming eon? I hope so.
But that will not happen until both you and I are worm food.
Preferably that than radioactive ashes.
One Russian professor speaks more (honest) sense than I have heard from any UK media talking head for over a decade. Speaks volumes.
I can only wish someone at the Kremlin read my Substack analysis “If The Russians Only Knew What Their Nukes are For,” and that they hid at least some of my suggestions therein on how to annihilate NATO Article 5. If they did and followed, they already have a leg up over NATO and the combined West.
Hei Glenn! Etter å ha sett den seneste YouTube videon din med Mearsheimer og Mercouris samt nyheter i dagens media har jeg ett spørsmål du kan gruble på:
According to some reports, including comments attributed to U.S. Secretary of State Lloyd Austin, there is speculation that North Korea may be sending troops to support Russia in Ukraine. I am unsure of the accuracy of these claims. However, it has also been suggested that South Korea might be considering sending troops and weapons to Ukraine in response. My question is: how would Russia react if non-NATO U.S. allies, such as South Korea, were to send weapons or personnel to Ukraine? Would Russia treat this differently from NATO countries sending aid? Would Moscow view this as a direct extension of U.S. involvement, or would there be a significant difference due to these countries being outside of NATO? How might this affect Russia's deterrence strategy?
Takk for fantastisk dekning, og for at du står opp og er en tydelig motvekt til dagens orwellianske verden
Isn’t it a shame that all of this could have been avoided if we had just listened to John Mearsheimer…
All of this could be avoided if Gorbachev was a realist and not a dreamer concerning promises made by the West.
Perhaps all this could not have been avoided...
And all this could be avoided if....
The US and the EU have long time ago passed the limit. The official US and EU and their public would never have accepted Russia spending billions on arms and aid to an democratic illegitimate coup regime.
The US would not have hesitated like Putin did eight years after the CIA-Nazi coup i 2014, but would have acted consequently. So it is due to Putin´s years of illusions of getting on good terms with his "partners", that the situation has developed to the dangerous level today.
Hopefully Putin has now realised that the US and its allies will go on being aggressive, hostile and undiplomatic until they get installed a puppet regime like the Yeltsin regime that serves their interests.
The US and EU and their mainstream public have clearly only respect for mutual power. They seem to be reflecting for the moment after Putin has finally sent reliable signals to retaliate against the USA and the EU countries if they via their Kiev regime attack Russian cities. But if they go escalating anyway, Putin must go to counterattack against Nato facilities from which deadly weapons against Russia are sent. And probably this is the only way to deter Nato and thus de-escalate the conflict.
I wonder if you could in the future discuss two related issues that perhaps we don't hear enough about:
1. Assuming the "decline of the West" (economic, social, late stage capitalism, etc.) is one the reasons (factors) given for the timing of push towards multipolarism by various countries, what is the current state of this decline and how is it affecting decision making, especially regarding escalation timing, patience, etc.
2. What are the prospects of sufficient economic decline in various Western countries that could result in their populations demanding fundamental changes from their elite regarding foreign policy?
Professor Karaganov's suggestion to the Russian leadership about changing nuclear doctrine to lower the threshold is a sign to me that Russian leading thinkers are out of ideas to deal with rabid dogs barking at them from various directions. Frankly my little hare-brain cannot think of any alternative, either. After all, one cannot reason with rabid dogs. Be prepared to defend yourselves, gentlemen.
GREAT discussion, Glenn! He has a wonderful smile, reminds me of Corbyn - although Corbyn would prefer to scrap nuclear weapons, rather than use them as a deterrent. Of course, the UK doesn't need a deterrence - it needs deterrING.
Glad you got your TB channel back, substack need to have 2x speed and subs for its new video function to actually be useful. (I watched the vid on the Durans channel due to this).
You two nearly always cover all the questions I could think of, and some more to boot, so not much to add. The Western psychos are on the march, and they need a very large stick waved in their face to wake them back up to Reality.
The West is lost in complete fantasies of the 19th Cent and earlier (see: Grees-Moog, F'Rage, Blojo), and combined with Zionazi extremist control of the media and elites, the future looks bleak.
I always wanted to travel to Siberia - but neither to work in a gulag, nor to have to read the bible. "Christianity" is a very large part of the reason why we are in this mess altogether. No Pagan society ever created WMDs...
I also saw your recent interview with Jay Martin. Have you considered the World IS overpopulated by egotistical monkeys, and the rest of Nature could benefit greatly by our numbers falling by at least 90%? Strongly preferably by peaceful means, such as lowered birth rates? "Go forth and populate the World" is a guaranteed path to human extinction and a dead planet. "Before them were forests, behind them they left deserts".
While Orthodox Christianity may not be as bad as what the Romans invented, it still has all the wrong memes that are leading us to destruction.
"Religion" however can be a good bulwark against atomisation through 'extreme liberalism', and communities are essential for humans to be healthy. In that you are right.
WHICH religions, and what flavours however - ahhh, there hangs a tale.
I wonder how much is left of the Siberian shaman and their Pagan religions - enough to spark a revival for the coming eon? I hope so.
But that will not happen until both you and I are worm food.
Preferably that than radioactive ashes.
One Russian professor speaks more (honest) sense than I have heard from any UK media talking head for over a decade. Speaks volumes.
I can only wish someone at the Kremlin read my Substack analysis “If The Russians Only Knew What Their Nukes are For,” and that they hid at least some of my suggestions therein on how to annihilate NATO Article 5. If they did and followed, they already have a leg up over NATO and the combined West.
I'll chip in ten bucks if they promise to target Ursula von der Leyen.