Canada should leave NATO behind and ally with Russia. We share much in common as huge, sparsely-populated countries with vast treasure chests of natural resources to protect.
It is good to dream! And be positive! Mr Dugin believes that Trump has the same enemies as Russia, that is a very foggy way to look at the reality on the ground. Iran will soon be attacked by the Nazi Zionist State backed by the green light from Trump. Iran is a strategically allied with Russia and, Russia cannot afford to let down Iran as it has done with Assad in Syria and Lebanon. The only agreement that is visibly possible is that Russia allows the realisation of the Nazi Zionist dream over Palestine , Syria, Lebanon an beyond. But to let down Iran in a War against the USA and the Nazi Zionist occupying Palestine will be a tragic tactical and strategic mistake by the Russian Federation. The secret services on many countries are working without stop to push Putin and Trump against each other and, I firmly believe that they will achieve their goals. Putin is well aware that the internal enemies are assiduously working against him and, will even try to assassinate Putin and Trump if he doesn’t follow the strategy built up since decades by the Deep State, for the Partition of the Russian Federation.
OUTSTANDING. It’s people like Dugin that opened my MAGA eyes to the Globalist KAISERIN Von der Leyen and her band of cronies. But all of this doesn’t matter there fate and downfall is sealed.
La Russia deve portare a termine la sua operazione speciale e denazificare l'Ucraina altrimenti il lavoro fatto fino adesso non è valso a nulla. I soldati russi morti in battaglia pretendono di essere onorati con la vittoria piena e certa sul campo dell'Ucraina. Putin non si deve far convincere da Trump sul cessato il fuoco perché Trump non è libero ma è legato mani e piedi da quel Deep State americano che è ancora potente nonostante l'ultima sconfitta elettorale.
Putin's most important job is to secure the Russian Federation. He will never permit hostile forces on Russia's western border. Putin has made this clear to the Western powers for a long time.. Putin will never permit Ukraine to be a sovereign pro-euro nazified state. Western powers must accede to Putin's basic requirements before peace negotiations can begin. If Western powers refuse to accede to this basic demand, Putin will annex the entirety of Ukraine with military force.
This statement presents a perspective that is politically charged, ideologically aligned with Russian nationalist or pro-Putin narratives, and makes several contentious claims. A detailed critique requires unpacking it from multiple angles: factual accuracy, rhetorical structure, ideological framing, and logical coherence.The opening assertion “Putin’s most important job is to secure the Russian Federation” is a normative claim that presupposes national security as the paramount responsibility of a leader, suggesting that any measure taken in its name is inherently justified. However, the historical record shows that Putin’s actions, including the invasions of Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine, extend well beyond conventional defense and often reflect expansionist or imperial motives. Following this is the statement, “He will never permit hostile forces on Russia’s western border,” which implies a right to control or influence the geopolitical choices of sovereign neighboring states. This reflects a neo-imperial security doctrine rooted in the Cold War mindset of buffer zones. It ignores the fact that NATO, portrayed here as a hostile force, is a defensive alliance. Its enlargement is largely driven by the voluntary accession of Eastern European countries seeking protection from Russian aggression, not to threaten Russia itself.The next claim “Putin has made this clear to the Western powers for a long time” is partially true in that Russia has voiced concerns about NATO enlargement. However, voicing concerns does not justify invading sovereign countries. Russia itself signed the Budapest Memorandum, agreeing to respect Ukraine’s borders in exchange for its nuclear disarmament. This is an example of diplomacy, which stands in contrast to Putin’s military interventions.The statement escalates in inflammatory rhetoric with the claim that “Putin will never permit Ukraine to be a sovereign pro-euro nazified state.” This phrase is both contradictory and propagandistic. It implies that Ukraine cannot be sovereign if it chooses a pro-European path, thus denying its agency. More egregiously, the term “nazified” is a central narrative in Russian propaganda that has been widely debunked. Ukraine is a democratic nation with a Jewish president and a negligible far-right political presence. The “nazification” claim serves as a dehumanizing device to justify aggression, not as a factual description.Next is the assertion that “Western powers must accede to Putin’s basic requirements before peace negotiations can begin.” This perspective places Russia in the role of sole legitimate actor, ignoring the rights of Ukraine and other countries. It assumes that diplomacy can only proceed if one side Russia sets the terms, reducing the process to a power play rather than a negotiation rooted in international law and mutual respect.Finally, the threat that “If Western powers refuse to accede to this basic demand, Putin will annex the entirety of Ukraine with military force” operates as a coercive ultimatum. It frames aggression as a natural and inevitable consequence of unmet demands. This not only dismisses the resilience of Ukrainian defense and the global consequences of expanded war, but also reinforces a worldview in which might determines right. It is ethically indefensible and strategically shortsighted.The authorial stance of this statement is uncritical and apologist. It adopts the Kremlin’s worldview without nuance, presents a binary framework in which compromise is impossible, and uses language that reflects authoritarian coercion rather than diplomatic engagement. Terms like “never permit,” “must accede,” and “will annex” betray a logic of domination. Moreover, the use of emotionally charged language like “nazified” reveals a propagandistic intent more than a reasoned argument.In terms of logical coherence, the argument is flawed. It simultaneously acknowledges and denies Ukrainian sovereignty, prescribes conditions under which diplomacy may occur that exclude the interests of other sovereign actors, and treats expansionist aggression as justifiable defense. Ethically, it privileges the will of one power over the autonomy of many, and in doing so, legitimizes war as an acceptable instrument of policy.In conclusion, this statement is a distilled version of Russian state rhetoric. It is historically inaccurate, morally corrosive, and diplomatically unviable. It denies the basic principles of international law and sovereignty and attempts to normalize aggression through rhetorical manipulation. Peace can only be achieved through mutual respect, rule of law, and recognition of all nations’ right to self-determination not through the capitulation to threats cloaked as strategic imperatives.
@Melvin Your long-winded post is full of stupidity and groupthink inculcated by the media. You are completely lost. You must be an evil Democrat or a “friend” of Hunter Biden. 🤣🤣🤣
Certainly a defender of the realm if nothing else. Long winded and pretentious. Look how many predicates and suppositions I'm using! Look at me I'm edumacated. In the final analysis who among us can pre-suppose legitimacy of NATO. They have outgrown their purpose and corrupted their charter. It's in their name for crying out loud. Today they are a provocative and deadly component of the globalist war mongers among us. The breaking of the Minsk Accord was their final breach of trust. And respect. Russia was our ally in two world wars. We share many great interests and similarities unlike China or Saudi Arabia. But yea sure.....Russia, Russia, Russia. And Trump. All while the Muslim horde burrows into the West unchecked. Clearly, Putin and his mother Russia are far from perfect, who among us is? In this, they are much like you and I and the West which is currently on life support.
The comment uses mockery and sarcasm as its main rhetorical tools, especially through the laughing emojis, which amplify ridicule rather than argument. This sets an aggressive, dismissive tone meant to shut down dialogue rather than engage. Words like “long-winded,” “stupidity,” and “groupthink” are all loaded terms designed to attack character instead of addressing content. This is a textbook example of ad hominem — attacking the person rather than the ideas.
There’s no substantive engagement with the actual post or ideas presented by you, Melvin. What part of the post was “stupid”? Which arguments are supposedly “groupthink”? Instead of pointing to actual media influence or offering counterpoints, the commenter relies on broad generalizations. Suggesting you must be either “evil” or connected to Hunter Biden creates a simplistic good/evil split and presumes binary political identities, ignoring nuance.
The commenter shows clear political bias and uses partisan signaling, such as “evil Democrat” or “friend of Hunter Biden,” as shorthand insults. These aren’t meant to persuade but to trigger an emotional reaction — anger, defensiveness, or dismissal — from both the target and any audience. This kind of language polarizes rather than opens discussion. The laughing emojis further signal in-group bonding — they’re not laughing with you; they’re laughing at you, and also inviting others to join in. This reflects social contempt, designed to reinforce their own position without debate.
At no point does the commenter provide alternative views, suggest improvements or corrections, or offer thoughtful disagreement. Instead, the entire post is performative — it’s not about you or your arguments, but about making the commenter look superior to their imagined audience.
Such a comment erodes civic discourse. Instead of fostering thoughtful debate, it contributes to polarization, echo chambers, and toxic communication environments. It reduces the space of dialogue to shaming and tribalism.
In summary, the tone is mocking, dismissive, sarcastic. The arguments are nonexistent, relying on insults and generalizations. There is no evidence, no specific rebuttals or examples. There is strong partisan bias and false binaries. And the effect on discourse is negative, as it deteriorates dialogue and invites further polarization.
A long and detailed analysis that seems misguided. Take this quote: “However, the historical record shows that Putin’s actions, including the invasions of Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine, extend well beyond conventional defense and often reflect expansionist or imperial motives. “ It simply does not hold water. In Georgia there was no expansionist motive and no expansion. In Ukraine, if the West had backed the Minsk accords and early peace negotiations, there would be nothing really but Crimea going to Russia. And for so many reasons, there was no alternative given the hostility of Ukraine and NATO towards Russia, but to annex Crimea, which by the way, almost universally supported joining Russia. I think this analysis is ideologically based and flawed. Which is too bad because the author seems to be a very good writer while a biased thinker.
Indeed, Melvin is merely echoing Western propaganda. I was extremely impressed by Putin's introductory speech at The Valdai Discussion Club in October 2023. It was 30 minutes long and my understanding of Putin largely is based on that speech. I made a text copy of the speech and inserted my own commentary in red text. I recommend reading the speech to anyone interested in this topic . Full speech at this link:
Here is an excerpt from the speech that represents the foundational logic of Putin's thinking. "... civilization is not a universal construct that is the same for everyone; this does not happen. Each of them is different from the others, each is self-sufficient culturally, each draws its ideological and value principles from its own history and its own traditions. Of course, respect for ourselves follows from respect for others, but there must also be respect from others. Therefore, civilization does not impose anything on anyone, but it does not allow anything to be imposed on itself. If everyone adheres to exactly this rule, this will ensure harmonious coexistence and creative interaction of all participants in international relations...."
This opening sentence is itself a rhetorical maneuver rather than an argument. To call someone’s position “Western propaganda” without substantiating what exactly constitutes that propaganda, how the speaker defines “Western,” and what the propagandistic elements are, is to shut down dialogue by implying ideological contamination. Rather than engage with Melvin’s argument, the speaker attacks its presumed origin. It collapses complex critiques or perspectives into an unexamined geopolitical polarity West vs. non-West (or Russia). This is intellectually lazy and politically charged. Ironically, dismissing a critique as “propaganda” while endorsing a speech by a head of state (Putin), without similar scrutiny, is a textbook case of uncritical reception arguably an instance of reverse propaganda receptivity. The user bases their understanding of Putin largely on this single speech a dangerous foundation, akin to understanding U.S. foreign policy solely through one presidential State of the Union address. Selecting one polished, strategic speech (aimed at international intellectuals and academics) while ignoring actions (e.g., the invasion of Ukraine, suppression of dissent, disinformation tactics, war crimes allegations) reveals a profound naiveté or willful blindness. The Valdai speech is a performance, not a policy document. It’s designed to cast Russia as a pluralistic and dignified civilizational counterpoint to the West this is not the same as actually being one. Putin speaks of mutual respect and non-imposition, while his government has acted to impose its will on Ukraine through military force. The contradiction here is not subtle; it is stark. This passage presents itself as a pluralistic, anti-imperialist vision, but beneath the surface lie critical issues. Putin frames civilizations as discrete, self-contained moral universes, each entitled to its own norms and sovereignty. This sounds tolerant, but can easily become a shield for authoritarianism. It implies no external critique is ever valid because “you are not of our civilization.” The statement elevates the idea of “civilizational difference” to sacrosanct status ignoring that within each “civilization,” there are diverse voices, dissenters, and alternative visions (e.g., liberal Russians, queer communities, feminists, dissidents). Who defines a civilization’s “values”? In practice, usually the ruling elite. The statement that civilization “does not impose anything on anyone, but it does not allow anything to be imposed on itself” feigns balance, but in geopolitical reality, Russia has imposed itself on others (Crimea, Georgia, Ukraine, etc.). Thus, the logic is strategically self-serving: it justifies resistance to criticism or influence (from liberal democracies, human rights organizations) while downplaying aggressive or imperial conduct. Putin’s argument implies that harmonious coexistence requires civilizations to remain impermeable. This contradicts the very history of human development: interaction, exchange, translation, syncretism. Cultural interdependence, not cultural siloing, has been the engine of historical progress. His model favors autarky and exceptionalism. The speech excerpt, couched in universalist language about mutual respect, masks a deeply instrumental ideology of civilizational relativism used to evade accountability for international aggression, justify domestic authoritarianism as “culturally appropriate,” and frame any external critique as cultural imperialism or “Western propaganda.” Meanwhile, the statement dismissing Melvin’s view is an intellectually hollow tactic designed to suppress dissent or critical analysis. To genuinely critique global power structures including those of the West requires more than flipping the script and embracing authoritarian voices as if they’re automatically “anti-propaganda.” True critical thinking examines all powers, East and West, with the same rigor. To admire a speech without confronting the speaker’s actions is not critical analysis. It’s credulous idealization.
The critique you’ve presented raises several important concerns about analytical bias, selective interpretation of historical events, and the potential oversimplification of complex geopolitical developments. Let’s examine this critique point by point, unpacking its claims and evaluating their validity.This is a broad evaluative claim that sets the tone of the critique as dismissive. However, the strength of this judgment hinges on the quality of evidence presented to challenge the original analysis. While this sentence functions rhetorically to suggest a problem of method or premise, it lacks specificity. What makes the analysis “misguided”? Is it misinformed, reductive, ideologically rigid, or simply inaccurate in its conclusions? This initial framing invites further scrutiny but needs substantiation to be persuasive.This is a standard interpretation found in much Western political analysis. The quoted statement makes a general claim that Putin’s foreign policy often exceeds defensive imperatives and reflects expansionist tendencies.Russia’s 2008 intervention in Georgia followed Georgia’s attempt to reassert control over the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia intervened militarily, pushed Georgian forces back, and subsequently recognized the independence of the two regions. Russian troops have remained there ever since. While it’s true that Russia did not formally annex territory in Georgia as it did in Crimea, the permanent military presence, recognition of breakaway republics, and increased Russian influence suggest a form of de facto expansion or sphere-of-influence politics, even if it’s not traditional territorial conquest. Dismissing this as having “no expansionist motive” overlooks this indirect mode of influence.This is a highly contested counterfactual and presents a narrative sympathetic to the Russian position. The Minsk accords were indeed a mechanism to de-escalate conflict in Eastern Ukraine, but both sides have been accused of failing to implement them fully. Western states generally supported the accords rhetorically but may have failed to pressure Ukraine adequately. At the same time, Russia continued to support separatist forces militarily and politically. This line of argument downplays Russia’s agency and portrays its actions as purely reactive. It implies that if only the West had been more conciliatory, the conflict would have resolved peacefully, which is debatable and not substantiated by consistent Russian behavior in the region.Yes, Crimea had a significant pro-Russian population, and the 2014 referendum reportedly showed overwhelming support for joining Russia. However, the context of military occupation, the lack of international observers, and the fact that Ukraine and most of the international community did not recognize the vote complicate the legitimacy of the annexation. Furthermore, even if popular, annexing part of a sovereign country by force remains a violation of international law. Justifying it as “there was no alternative” echoes realpolitik arguments that often mask coercive strategies.This is a subjective but common type of rhetorical move in critique: accusing the author of ideological bias. However, the critic does not fully escape ideological positioning themselves, as their defense of Russian actions clearly reflects an alternative ideological lens one skeptical of NATO, sympathetic to Russian strategic concerns, and invested in narratives of Western culpability. A stronger critique would acknowledge the complexity of all actors’ motives (Russia, NATO, Ukraine), rather than negating expansionist motives outright or suggesting inevitability (“no alternative”).This line offers a token compliment, but it is ultimately undermined by the ad hominem tone. Accusing someone of being a “biased thinker” without sufficiently proving the nature and extent of that bias can feel like an easy dismissal rather than a serious engagement with the argument.While the critic raises some valid points of contention particularly around Crimea’s local support and Western missteps with the Minsk accords their arguments tend to simplify or overlook key elements, such as Russia’s longstanding strategic goals in the post-Soviet space, hybrid warfare and indirect expansionism, and international legal norms.Ultimately, this critique would be stronger if it moved beyond binary justifications (Russia = reactive, West = aggressive) and engaged with the complexity and moral ambiguity of realpolitik, historical memory, and national interest on all sides. The original analysis may indeed have ideological leanings, but this counter-critique does too — and thus serves more as a competing narrative than a dispassionate refutation.
The critique you’ve presented raises several important concerns about analytical bias, selective interpretation of historical events, and the potential oversimplification of complex geopolitical developments. Let’s examine this critique point by point, unpacking its claims and evaluating their validity.
This is a broad evaluative claim that sets the tone of the critique as dismissive. However, the strength of this judgment hinges on the quality of evidence presented to challenge the original analysis. While this sentence functions rhetorically to suggest a problem of method or premise, it lacks specificity. What makes the analysis “misguided”? Is it misinformed, reductive, ideologically rigid, or simply inaccurate in its conclusions? This initial framing invites further scrutiny but needs substantiation to be persuasive.
This is a standard interpretation found in much Western political analysis. The quoted statement makes a general claim that Putin’s foreign policy often exceeds defensive imperatives and reflects expansionist tendencies.
Russia’s 2008 intervention in Georgia followed Georgia’s attempt to reassert control over the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia intervened militarily, pushed Georgian forces back, and subsequently recognized the independence of the two regions. Russian troops have remained there ever since. While it’s true that Russia did not formally annex territory in Georgia as it did in Crimea, the permanent military presence, recognition of breakaway republics, and increased Russian influence suggest a form of de facto expansion or sphere-of-influence politics, even if it’s not traditional territorial conquest. Dismissing this as having “no expansionist motive” overlooks this indirect mode of influence.
This is a highly contested counterfactual and presents a narrative sympathetic to the Russian position. The Minsk accords were indeed a mechanism to de-escalate conflict in Eastern Ukraine, but both sides have been accused of failing to implement them fully. Western states generally supported the accords rhetorically but may have failed to pressure Ukraine adequately. At the same time, Russia continued to support separatist forces militarily and politically. This line of argument downplays Russia’s agency and portrays its actions as purely reactive. It implies that if only the West had been more conciliatory, the conflict would have resolved peacefully, which is debatable and not substantiated by consistent Russian behavior in the region.
Yes, Crimea had a significant pro-Russian population, and the 2014 referendum reportedly showed overwhelming support for joining Russia. However, the context of military occupation, the lack of international observers, and the fact that Ukraine and most of the international community did not recognize the vote complicate the legitimacy of the annexation. Furthermore, even if popular, annexing part of a sovereign country by force remains a violation of international law. Justifying it as “there was no alternative” echoes realpolitik arguments that often mask coercive strategies.
This is a subjective but common type of rhetorical move in critique: accusing the author of ideological bias. However, the critic does not fully escape ideological positioning themselves, as their defense of Russian actions clearly reflects an alternative ideological lens — one skeptical of NATO, sympathetic to Russian strategic concerns, and invested in narratives of Western culpability. A stronger critique would acknowledge the complexity of all actors’ motives (Russia, NATO, Ukraine), rather than negating expansionist motives outright or suggesting inevitability (“no alternative”).
This line offers a token compliment, but it is ultimately undermined by the ad hominem tone. Accusing someone of being a “biased thinker” without sufficiently proving the nature and extent of that bias can feel like an easy dismissal rather than a serious engagement with the argument.
While the critic raises some valid points of contention — particularly around Crimea’s local support and Western missteps with the Minsk accords — their arguments tend to simplify or overlook key elements, such as Russia’s longstanding strategic goals in the post-Soviet space, hybrid warfare and indirect expansionism, and international legal norms.
Ultimately, this critique would be stronger if it moved beyond binary justifications (Russia = reactive, West = aggressive) and engaged with the complexity and moral ambiguity of realpolitik, historical memory, and national interest on all sides. The original analysis may indeed have ideological leanings, but this counter-critique does too — and thus serves more as a competing narrative than a dispassionate refutation.
As always a beautiful, concise treatise on what is, and what could and should be. No wonder the world's 2 greatest leaders are vilified and demonized, harangued and attack by the same cabal of godless genocidal globalist filth. Putin is a man amongst spoiled, degenerate children. Trump? With the luciferian, galactically corrupt, depraved democrats.
I genuinely do not believe Trump is as smart as the article wants us to believe. He is far from creating any architecture. Look at the tariff “liberation day” rhetoric for example and how that backfired on American economy. He goes one direction one day then goes to the opposite direction in the second. He wasn’t able to end the war in Ukraine, or Gaza or fight the Houthis or stand his ground in the trade war with China. Behind all the bluff in his speeches, if you really critically evaluate what he has done in the first 5 months of his presidency, he has done nothing. Except collect trillions from the Gulf.
I think you are being hacked. I got this reply ostensibly from the thread of comments. It was a small photo of Adam Schiff. And it said...with a heart. Adam Schiff liked your comment. Also you video improved because the English text was clear and readable.
The core strategic assertion that “real” peace negotiations can only happen from a position of Russian military superiority relies on a zero-sum logic that is both dangerous and outdated in the 21st century. This vision implies that war, conquest, and the occupation of territory are the only paths to diplomatic leverage. The idea that negotiations require prior victory undermines the principle of diplomacy as a means of avoiding further bloodshed. It also sidesteps the reality that prolonged warfare often creates diminishing returns, both militarily and politically. Moreover, the text acknowledges that Russia has not achieved military superiority and is “up against the entire West,” but still maintains that further escalation is required. This is strategically self-defeating: if a war has not produced decisive results against a better-equipped coalition, the idea that “just a few more regions” will turn the tide assumes a linear trajectory of success that does not correspond to real-world complexity especially in a war of attrition. The central ideological thesis that Russia and Trump are joint victims of a globalist conspiracy is a conspiratorial narrative that conflates domestic American politics with Russian military ambitions. The writer uses this narrative to project ideological solidarity between Trump’s base and the Russian state, suggesting that both are fighting the same hidden enemy. This is a striking inversion of conventional diplomatic logic. It presumes that the internal enemies of Trump are ipso facto the geopolitical enemies of Russia, without providing any concrete policy overlap or mutual interest outside of rhetorical alignment. It obscures material geopolitical interests (sovereignty, security, trade, democracy) beneath a vague, Manichaean struggle between “sovereigntists” and “globalists.” This narrative is strategically useful as a rhetorical tool to justify continued war and authoritarian governance but it is analytically thin and ideologically manipulative. The tone throughout is deeply propagandistic. Key phrases “buffer zone,” “victory,” “liberated regions,” “enemies of Trump are enemies of Russia” are slogans more than arguments. They are designed to stir emotion and tribal identification rather than convey analytical substance. Furthermore, the use of terms like “ceasefire = defeat” is a rhetorical device that preempts any opposition within Russia to continued warfare, branding diplomacy as treason. The attempt to position Putin as a “great historical leader” contrasts sharply with the implied chaos of liberal democracies, again reinforcing authoritarian mythmaking. This propagandistic tone may be internally coherent for supporters of the Kremlin worldview, but it drastically narrows the space for policy flexibility and public discourse. Several claims in the piece are historically dubious or misleading: the claim that four regions of Ukraine have been “liberated” reflects a Russian nationalist framing that ignores international law, Ukrainian sovereignty, and the will of local populations. The statement that George Simion in Romania had victory “stolen” from him through “fraud and other manipulations” is unsubstantiated and seems inserted to suggest a pattern of anti-sovereigntist manipulation by EU forces again, without evidence. The idea that the EU is a “last stronghold of globalists” simplifies the complex ideological diversity of European political institutions. These misrepresentations function rhetorically to collapse diverse geopolitical phenomena into a single binary narrative us vs. them, East vs. West, sovereign vs. globalist which simplifies and distorts reality. Perhaps the most dangerous implication of the text is its rejection of neutrality and diplomacy as legitimate pathways to peace. It posits that any compromise even tactical would be equivalent to existential defeat. This approach forecloses the possibility of negotiated settlements and guarantees a protracted conflict, likely at great human and economic cost. It also advances a worldview in which sovereignty is redefined not by international consensus, but by brute military control. The buffer zone strategy explicitly calls for the absorption or neutralization of sovereign Ukrainian territory as a precondition for peace an imperial logic that recalls 19th- and early 20th-century realpolitik more than modern international norms. Ultimately, the text fuses Russian authoritarian nationalism with American reactionary populism in a way that is rhetorically compelling for certain audiences but strategically incoherent on the global stage. It appeals to a mythic vision of order, identity, and civilizational struggle, while ignoring the practical and humanitarian costs of warfare. It is ideologically significant as an example of how global right-wing movements are being rhetorically aligned, not necessarily through coherent policy interests, but through a shared sense of persecution by “globalist elites.” This ideological convergence deserves serious scrutiny not least because it relies on war, disinformation, and the abandonment of diplomacy as its preferred instruments.
Your narratives are too complicated for me to attempt to debunk. I am persuaded by John Mearsheimer's analysis that Russia is reacting to the expansion of NATO. In the original agreements between Russia and the West with Gorbachev NATO agreed NOT to expand and Putin has complained with every NATO expansion. Neutrality of Ukraine has always been Putin's primary demand which has always been ignored by the NATO. It is not a surprise that Putin has moved his military into Ukraine to resist the intentions of NATO.
I am persuaded by Putin's assertions at Valdai in October 2023 that expansion of Russia into Europe would be a losing strategy in the current world. Rather, harvesting the untapped resources contained within the Russian Federation will be a more productive use Russian energy.
Say what you will.. the EU / NATO actions to bring Ukraine into Europe will fail. If an all out war breaks out between NATO and Russia, Russia will have support from N Korea and China and will prevail over NATO at enormous cost of life. Putin will never accept a European Ukraine with new US military bases and a powerful Azov .
Canada should leave NATO behind and ally with Russia. We share much in common as huge, sparsely-populated countries with vast treasure chests of natural resources to protect.
Canada is not a sovereign nation: It is entirely owned and controlled by The Crown !!!
It is good to dream! And be positive! Mr Dugin believes that Trump has the same enemies as Russia, that is a very foggy way to look at the reality on the ground. Iran will soon be attacked by the Nazi Zionist State backed by the green light from Trump. Iran is a strategically allied with Russia and, Russia cannot afford to let down Iran as it has done with Assad in Syria and Lebanon. The only agreement that is visibly possible is that Russia allows the realisation of the Nazi Zionist dream over Palestine , Syria, Lebanon an beyond. But to let down Iran in a War against the USA and the Nazi Zionist occupying Palestine will be a tragic tactical and strategic mistake by the Russian Federation. The secret services on many countries are working without stop to push Putin and Trump against each other and, I firmly believe that they will achieve their goals. Putin is well aware that the internal enemies are assiduously working against him and, will even try to assassinate Putin and Trump if he doesn’t follow the strategy built up since decades by the Deep State, for the Partition of the Russian Federation.
OUTSTANDING. It’s people like Dugin that opened my MAGA eyes to the Globalist KAISERIN Von der Leyen and her band of cronies. But all of this doesn’t matter there fate and downfall is sealed.
La Russia deve portare a termine la sua operazione speciale e denazificare l'Ucraina altrimenti il lavoro fatto fino adesso non è valso a nulla. I soldati russi morti in battaglia pretendono di essere onorati con la vittoria piena e certa sul campo dell'Ucraina. Putin non si deve far convincere da Trump sul cessato il fuoco perché Trump non è libero ma è legato mani e piedi da quel Deep State americano che è ancora potente nonostante l'ultima sconfitta elettorale.
Putin's most important job is to secure the Russian Federation. He will never permit hostile forces on Russia's western border. Putin has made this clear to the Western powers for a long time.. Putin will never permit Ukraine to be a sovereign pro-euro nazified state. Western powers must accede to Putin's basic requirements before peace negotiations can begin. If Western powers refuse to accede to this basic demand, Putin will annex the entirety of Ukraine with military force.
This statement presents a perspective that is politically charged, ideologically aligned with Russian nationalist or pro-Putin narratives, and makes several contentious claims. A detailed critique requires unpacking it from multiple angles: factual accuracy, rhetorical structure, ideological framing, and logical coherence.The opening assertion “Putin’s most important job is to secure the Russian Federation” is a normative claim that presupposes national security as the paramount responsibility of a leader, suggesting that any measure taken in its name is inherently justified. However, the historical record shows that Putin’s actions, including the invasions of Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine, extend well beyond conventional defense and often reflect expansionist or imperial motives. Following this is the statement, “He will never permit hostile forces on Russia’s western border,” which implies a right to control or influence the geopolitical choices of sovereign neighboring states. This reflects a neo-imperial security doctrine rooted in the Cold War mindset of buffer zones. It ignores the fact that NATO, portrayed here as a hostile force, is a defensive alliance. Its enlargement is largely driven by the voluntary accession of Eastern European countries seeking protection from Russian aggression, not to threaten Russia itself.The next claim “Putin has made this clear to the Western powers for a long time” is partially true in that Russia has voiced concerns about NATO enlargement. However, voicing concerns does not justify invading sovereign countries. Russia itself signed the Budapest Memorandum, agreeing to respect Ukraine’s borders in exchange for its nuclear disarmament. This is an example of diplomacy, which stands in contrast to Putin’s military interventions.The statement escalates in inflammatory rhetoric with the claim that “Putin will never permit Ukraine to be a sovereign pro-euro nazified state.” This phrase is both contradictory and propagandistic. It implies that Ukraine cannot be sovereign if it chooses a pro-European path, thus denying its agency. More egregiously, the term “nazified” is a central narrative in Russian propaganda that has been widely debunked. Ukraine is a democratic nation with a Jewish president and a negligible far-right political presence. The “nazification” claim serves as a dehumanizing device to justify aggression, not as a factual description.Next is the assertion that “Western powers must accede to Putin’s basic requirements before peace negotiations can begin.” This perspective places Russia in the role of sole legitimate actor, ignoring the rights of Ukraine and other countries. It assumes that diplomacy can only proceed if one side Russia sets the terms, reducing the process to a power play rather than a negotiation rooted in international law and mutual respect.Finally, the threat that “If Western powers refuse to accede to this basic demand, Putin will annex the entirety of Ukraine with military force” operates as a coercive ultimatum. It frames aggression as a natural and inevitable consequence of unmet demands. This not only dismisses the resilience of Ukrainian defense and the global consequences of expanded war, but also reinforces a worldview in which might determines right. It is ethically indefensible and strategically shortsighted.The authorial stance of this statement is uncritical and apologist. It adopts the Kremlin’s worldview without nuance, presents a binary framework in which compromise is impossible, and uses language that reflects authoritarian coercion rather than diplomatic engagement. Terms like “never permit,” “must accede,” and “will annex” betray a logic of domination. Moreover, the use of emotionally charged language like “nazified” reveals a propagandistic intent more than a reasoned argument.In terms of logical coherence, the argument is flawed. It simultaneously acknowledges and denies Ukrainian sovereignty, prescribes conditions under which diplomacy may occur that exclude the interests of other sovereign actors, and treats expansionist aggression as justifiable defense. Ethically, it privileges the will of one power over the autonomy of many, and in doing so, legitimizes war as an acceptable instrument of policy.In conclusion, this statement is a distilled version of Russian state rhetoric. It is historically inaccurate, morally corrosive, and diplomatically unviable. It denies the basic principles of international law and sovereignty and attempts to normalize aggression through rhetorical manipulation. Peace can only be achieved through mutual respect, rule of law, and recognition of all nations’ right to self-determination not through the capitulation to threats cloaked as strategic imperatives.
@Melvin Your long-winded post is full of stupidity and groupthink inculcated by the media. You are completely lost. You must be an evil Democrat or a “friend” of Hunter Biden. 🤣🤣🤣
Certainly a defender of the realm if nothing else. Long winded and pretentious. Look how many predicates and suppositions I'm using! Look at me I'm edumacated. In the final analysis who among us can pre-suppose legitimacy of NATO. They have outgrown their purpose and corrupted their charter. It's in their name for crying out loud. Today they are a provocative and deadly component of the globalist war mongers among us. The breaking of the Minsk Accord was their final breach of trust. And respect. Russia was our ally in two world wars. We share many great interests and similarities unlike China or Saudi Arabia. But yea sure.....Russia, Russia, Russia. And Trump. All while the Muslim horde burrows into the West unchecked. Clearly, Putin and his mother Russia are far from perfect, who among us is? In this, they are much like you and I and the West which is currently on life support.
Very well said, accurate and brief
The comment uses mockery and sarcasm as its main rhetorical tools, especially through the laughing emojis, which amplify ridicule rather than argument. This sets an aggressive, dismissive tone meant to shut down dialogue rather than engage. Words like “long-winded,” “stupidity,” and “groupthink” are all loaded terms designed to attack character instead of addressing content. This is a textbook example of ad hominem — attacking the person rather than the ideas.
There’s no substantive engagement with the actual post or ideas presented by you, Melvin. What part of the post was “stupid”? Which arguments are supposedly “groupthink”? Instead of pointing to actual media influence or offering counterpoints, the commenter relies on broad generalizations. Suggesting you must be either “evil” or connected to Hunter Biden creates a simplistic good/evil split and presumes binary political identities, ignoring nuance.
The commenter shows clear political bias and uses partisan signaling, such as “evil Democrat” or “friend of Hunter Biden,” as shorthand insults. These aren’t meant to persuade but to trigger an emotional reaction — anger, defensiveness, or dismissal — from both the target and any audience. This kind of language polarizes rather than opens discussion. The laughing emojis further signal in-group bonding — they’re not laughing with you; they’re laughing at you, and also inviting others to join in. This reflects social contempt, designed to reinforce their own position without debate.
At no point does the commenter provide alternative views, suggest improvements or corrections, or offer thoughtful disagreement. Instead, the entire post is performative — it’s not about you or your arguments, but about making the commenter look superior to their imagined audience.
Such a comment erodes civic discourse. Instead of fostering thoughtful debate, it contributes to polarization, echo chambers, and toxic communication environments. It reduces the space of dialogue to shaming and tribalism.
In summary, the tone is mocking, dismissive, sarcastic. The arguments are nonexistent, relying on insults and generalizations. There is no evidence, no specific rebuttals or examples. There is strong partisan bias and false binaries. And the effect on discourse is negative, as it deteriorates dialogue and invites further polarization.
A long and detailed analysis that seems misguided. Take this quote: “However, the historical record shows that Putin’s actions, including the invasions of Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine, extend well beyond conventional defense and often reflect expansionist or imperial motives. “ It simply does not hold water. In Georgia there was no expansionist motive and no expansion. In Ukraine, if the West had backed the Minsk accords and early peace negotiations, there would be nothing really but Crimea going to Russia. And for so many reasons, there was no alternative given the hostility of Ukraine and NATO towards Russia, but to annex Crimea, which by the way, almost universally supported joining Russia. I think this analysis is ideologically based and flawed. Which is too bad because the author seems to be a very good writer while a biased thinker.
Indeed, Melvin is merely echoing Western propaganda. I was extremely impressed by Putin's introductory speech at The Valdai Discussion Club in October 2023. It was 30 minutes long and my understanding of Putin largely is based on that speech. I made a text copy of the speech and inserted my own commentary in red text. I recommend reading the speech to anyone interested in this topic . Full speech at this link:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZXYMBbbeeKVk1sthPauocNnZXGW50Aee-Qfrp9tMeaA/
Here is an excerpt from the speech that represents the foundational logic of Putin's thinking. "... civilization is not a universal construct that is the same for everyone; this does not happen. Each of them is different from the others, each is self-sufficient culturally, each draws its ideological and value principles from its own history and its own traditions. Of course, respect for ourselves follows from respect for others, but there must also be respect from others. Therefore, civilization does not impose anything on anyone, but it does not allow anything to be imposed on itself. If everyone adheres to exactly this rule, this will ensure harmonious coexistence and creative interaction of all participants in international relations...."
This opening sentence is itself a rhetorical maneuver rather than an argument. To call someone’s position “Western propaganda” without substantiating what exactly constitutes that propaganda, how the speaker defines “Western,” and what the propagandistic elements are, is to shut down dialogue by implying ideological contamination. Rather than engage with Melvin’s argument, the speaker attacks its presumed origin. It collapses complex critiques or perspectives into an unexamined geopolitical polarity West vs. non-West (or Russia). This is intellectually lazy and politically charged. Ironically, dismissing a critique as “propaganda” while endorsing a speech by a head of state (Putin), without similar scrutiny, is a textbook case of uncritical reception arguably an instance of reverse propaganda receptivity. The user bases their understanding of Putin largely on this single speech a dangerous foundation, akin to understanding U.S. foreign policy solely through one presidential State of the Union address. Selecting one polished, strategic speech (aimed at international intellectuals and academics) while ignoring actions (e.g., the invasion of Ukraine, suppression of dissent, disinformation tactics, war crimes allegations) reveals a profound naiveté or willful blindness. The Valdai speech is a performance, not a policy document. It’s designed to cast Russia as a pluralistic and dignified civilizational counterpoint to the West this is not the same as actually being one. Putin speaks of mutual respect and non-imposition, while his government has acted to impose its will on Ukraine through military force. The contradiction here is not subtle; it is stark. This passage presents itself as a pluralistic, anti-imperialist vision, but beneath the surface lie critical issues. Putin frames civilizations as discrete, self-contained moral universes, each entitled to its own norms and sovereignty. This sounds tolerant, but can easily become a shield for authoritarianism. It implies no external critique is ever valid because “you are not of our civilization.” The statement elevates the idea of “civilizational difference” to sacrosanct status ignoring that within each “civilization,” there are diverse voices, dissenters, and alternative visions (e.g., liberal Russians, queer communities, feminists, dissidents). Who defines a civilization’s “values”? In practice, usually the ruling elite. The statement that civilization “does not impose anything on anyone, but it does not allow anything to be imposed on itself” feigns balance, but in geopolitical reality, Russia has imposed itself on others (Crimea, Georgia, Ukraine, etc.). Thus, the logic is strategically self-serving: it justifies resistance to criticism or influence (from liberal democracies, human rights organizations) while downplaying aggressive or imperial conduct. Putin’s argument implies that harmonious coexistence requires civilizations to remain impermeable. This contradicts the very history of human development: interaction, exchange, translation, syncretism. Cultural interdependence, not cultural siloing, has been the engine of historical progress. His model favors autarky and exceptionalism. The speech excerpt, couched in universalist language about mutual respect, masks a deeply instrumental ideology of civilizational relativism used to evade accountability for international aggression, justify domestic authoritarianism as “culturally appropriate,” and frame any external critique as cultural imperialism or “Western propaganda.” Meanwhile, the statement dismissing Melvin’s view is an intellectually hollow tactic designed to suppress dissent or critical analysis. To genuinely critique global power structures including those of the West requires more than flipping the script and embracing authoritarian voices as if they’re automatically “anti-propaganda.” True critical thinking examines all powers, East and West, with the same rigor. To admire a speech without confronting the speaker’s actions is not critical analysis. It’s credulous idealization.
The critique you’ve presented raises several important concerns about analytical bias, selective interpretation of historical events, and the potential oversimplification of complex geopolitical developments. Let’s examine this critique point by point, unpacking its claims and evaluating their validity.This is a broad evaluative claim that sets the tone of the critique as dismissive. However, the strength of this judgment hinges on the quality of evidence presented to challenge the original analysis. While this sentence functions rhetorically to suggest a problem of method or premise, it lacks specificity. What makes the analysis “misguided”? Is it misinformed, reductive, ideologically rigid, or simply inaccurate in its conclusions? This initial framing invites further scrutiny but needs substantiation to be persuasive.This is a standard interpretation found in much Western political analysis. The quoted statement makes a general claim that Putin’s foreign policy often exceeds defensive imperatives and reflects expansionist tendencies.Russia’s 2008 intervention in Georgia followed Georgia’s attempt to reassert control over the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia intervened militarily, pushed Georgian forces back, and subsequently recognized the independence of the two regions. Russian troops have remained there ever since. While it’s true that Russia did not formally annex territory in Georgia as it did in Crimea, the permanent military presence, recognition of breakaway republics, and increased Russian influence suggest a form of de facto expansion or sphere-of-influence politics, even if it’s not traditional territorial conquest. Dismissing this as having “no expansionist motive” overlooks this indirect mode of influence.This is a highly contested counterfactual and presents a narrative sympathetic to the Russian position. The Minsk accords were indeed a mechanism to de-escalate conflict in Eastern Ukraine, but both sides have been accused of failing to implement them fully. Western states generally supported the accords rhetorically but may have failed to pressure Ukraine adequately. At the same time, Russia continued to support separatist forces militarily and politically. This line of argument downplays Russia’s agency and portrays its actions as purely reactive. It implies that if only the West had been more conciliatory, the conflict would have resolved peacefully, which is debatable and not substantiated by consistent Russian behavior in the region.Yes, Crimea had a significant pro-Russian population, and the 2014 referendum reportedly showed overwhelming support for joining Russia. However, the context of military occupation, the lack of international observers, and the fact that Ukraine and most of the international community did not recognize the vote complicate the legitimacy of the annexation. Furthermore, even if popular, annexing part of a sovereign country by force remains a violation of international law. Justifying it as “there was no alternative” echoes realpolitik arguments that often mask coercive strategies.This is a subjective but common type of rhetorical move in critique: accusing the author of ideological bias. However, the critic does not fully escape ideological positioning themselves, as their defense of Russian actions clearly reflects an alternative ideological lens one skeptical of NATO, sympathetic to Russian strategic concerns, and invested in narratives of Western culpability. A stronger critique would acknowledge the complexity of all actors’ motives (Russia, NATO, Ukraine), rather than negating expansionist motives outright or suggesting inevitability (“no alternative”).This line offers a token compliment, but it is ultimately undermined by the ad hominem tone. Accusing someone of being a “biased thinker” without sufficiently proving the nature and extent of that bias can feel like an easy dismissal rather than a serious engagement with the argument.While the critic raises some valid points of contention particularly around Crimea’s local support and Western missteps with the Minsk accords their arguments tend to simplify or overlook key elements, such as Russia’s longstanding strategic goals in the post-Soviet space, hybrid warfare and indirect expansionism, and international legal norms.Ultimately, this critique would be stronger if it moved beyond binary justifications (Russia = reactive, West = aggressive) and engaged with the complexity and moral ambiguity of realpolitik, historical memory, and national interest on all sides. The original analysis may indeed have ideological leanings, but this counter-critique does too — and thus serves more as a competing narrative than a dispassionate refutation.
The critique you’ve presented raises several important concerns about analytical bias, selective interpretation of historical events, and the potential oversimplification of complex geopolitical developments. Let’s examine this critique point by point, unpacking its claims and evaluating their validity.
This is a broad evaluative claim that sets the tone of the critique as dismissive. However, the strength of this judgment hinges on the quality of evidence presented to challenge the original analysis. While this sentence functions rhetorically to suggest a problem of method or premise, it lacks specificity. What makes the analysis “misguided”? Is it misinformed, reductive, ideologically rigid, or simply inaccurate in its conclusions? This initial framing invites further scrutiny but needs substantiation to be persuasive.
This is a standard interpretation found in much Western political analysis. The quoted statement makes a general claim that Putin’s foreign policy often exceeds defensive imperatives and reflects expansionist tendencies.
Russia’s 2008 intervention in Georgia followed Georgia’s attempt to reassert control over the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia intervened militarily, pushed Georgian forces back, and subsequently recognized the independence of the two regions. Russian troops have remained there ever since. While it’s true that Russia did not formally annex territory in Georgia as it did in Crimea, the permanent military presence, recognition of breakaway republics, and increased Russian influence suggest a form of de facto expansion or sphere-of-influence politics, even if it’s not traditional territorial conquest. Dismissing this as having “no expansionist motive” overlooks this indirect mode of influence.
This is a highly contested counterfactual and presents a narrative sympathetic to the Russian position. The Minsk accords were indeed a mechanism to de-escalate conflict in Eastern Ukraine, but both sides have been accused of failing to implement them fully. Western states generally supported the accords rhetorically but may have failed to pressure Ukraine adequately. At the same time, Russia continued to support separatist forces militarily and politically. This line of argument downplays Russia’s agency and portrays its actions as purely reactive. It implies that if only the West had been more conciliatory, the conflict would have resolved peacefully, which is debatable and not substantiated by consistent Russian behavior in the region.
Yes, Crimea had a significant pro-Russian population, and the 2014 referendum reportedly showed overwhelming support for joining Russia. However, the context of military occupation, the lack of international observers, and the fact that Ukraine and most of the international community did not recognize the vote complicate the legitimacy of the annexation. Furthermore, even if popular, annexing part of a sovereign country by force remains a violation of international law. Justifying it as “there was no alternative” echoes realpolitik arguments that often mask coercive strategies.
This is a subjective but common type of rhetorical move in critique: accusing the author of ideological bias. However, the critic does not fully escape ideological positioning themselves, as their defense of Russian actions clearly reflects an alternative ideological lens — one skeptical of NATO, sympathetic to Russian strategic concerns, and invested in narratives of Western culpability. A stronger critique would acknowledge the complexity of all actors’ motives (Russia, NATO, Ukraine), rather than negating expansionist motives outright or suggesting inevitability (“no alternative”).
This line offers a token compliment, but it is ultimately undermined by the ad hominem tone. Accusing someone of being a “biased thinker” without sufficiently proving the nature and extent of that bias can feel like an easy dismissal rather than a serious engagement with the argument.
While the critic raises some valid points of contention — particularly around Crimea’s local support and Western missteps with the Minsk accords — their arguments tend to simplify or overlook key elements, such as Russia’s longstanding strategic goals in the post-Soviet space, hybrid warfare and indirect expansionism, and international legal norms.
Ultimately, this critique would be stronger if it moved beyond binary justifications (Russia = reactive, West = aggressive) and engaged with the complexity and moral ambiguity of realpolitik, historical memory, and national interest on all sides. The original analysis may indeed have ideological leanings, but this counter-critique does too — and thus serves more as a competing narrative than a dispassionate refutation.
Touché, nailed completely the actuality and reality faced… couldn’t agree more, what else is left to say?
Kia Kaha (Stay Strong) from New Zealand
Of course, a great deal.
As always a beautiful, concise treatise on what is, and what could and should be. No wonder the world's 2 greatest leaders are vilified and demonized, harangued and attack by the same cabal of godless genocidal globalist filth. Putin is a man amongst spoiled, degenerate children. Trump? With the luciferian, galactically corrupt, depraved democrats.
👏👏👏
I genuinely do not believe Trump is as smart as the article wants us to believe. He is far from creating any architecture. Look at the tariff “liberation day” rhetoric for example and how that backfired on American economy. He goes one direction one day then goes to the opposite direction in the second. He wasn’t able to end the war in Ukraine, or Gaza or fight the Houthis or stand his ground in the trade war with China. Behind all the bluff in his speeches, if you really critically evaluate what he has done in the first 5 months of his presidency, he has done nothing. Except collect trillions from the Gulf.
A very good analysis of a very complex situation.
Right on...
I think you are being hacked. I got this reply ostensibly from the thread of comments. It was a small photo of Adam Schiff. And it said...with a heart. Adam Schiff liked your comment. Also you video improved because the English text was clear and readable.
The core strategic assertion that “real” peace negotiations can only happen from a position of Russian military superiority relies on a zero-sum logic that is both dangerous and outdated in the 21st century. This vision implies that war, conquest, and the occupation of territory are the only paths to diplomatic leverage. The idea that negotiations require prior victory undermines the principle of diplomacy as a means of avoiding further bloodshed. It also sidesteps the reality that prolonged warfare often creates diminishing returns, both militarily and politically. Moreover, the text acknowledges that Russia has not achieved military superiority and is “up against the entire West,” but still maintains that further escalation is required. This is strategically self-defeating: if a war has not produced decisive results against a better-equipped coalition, the idea that “just a few more regions” will turn the tide assumes a linear trajectory of success that does not correspond to real-world complexity especially in a war of attrition. The central ideological thesis that Russia and Trump are joint victims of a globalist conspiracy is a conspiratorial narrative that conflates domestic American politics with Russian military ambitions. The writer uses this narrative to project ideological solidarity between Trump’s base and the Russian state, suggesting that both are fighting the same hidden enemy. This is a striking inversion of conventional diplomatic logic. It presumes that the internal enemies of Trump are ipso facto the geopolitical enemies of Russia, without providing any concrete policy overlap or mutual interest outside of rhetorical alignment. It obscures material geopolitical interests (sovereignty, security, trade, democracy) beneath a vague, Manichaean struggle between “sovereigntists” and “globalists.” This narrative is strategically useful as a rhetorical tool to justify continued war and authoritarian governance but it is analytically thin and ideologically manipulative. The tone throughout is deeply propagandistic. Key phrases “buffer zone,” “victory,” “liberated regions,” “enemies of Trump are enemies of Russia” are slogans more than arguments. They are designed to stir emotion and tribal identification rather than convey analytical substance. Furthermore, the use of terms like “ceasefire = defeat” is a rhetorical device that preempts any opposition within Russia to continued warfare, branding diplomacy as treason. The attempt to position Putin as a “great historical leader” contrasts sharply with the implied chaos of liberal democracies, again reinforcing authoritarian mythmaking. This propagandistic tone may be internally coherent for supporters of the Kremlin worldview, but it drastically narrows the space for policy flexibility and public discourse. Several claims in the piece are historically dubious or misleading: the claim that four regions of Ukraine have been “liberated” reflects a Russian nationalist framing that ignores international law, Ukrainian sovereignty, and the will of local populations. The statement that George Simion in Romania had victory “stolen” from him through “fraud and other manipulations” is unsubstantiated and seems inserted to suggest a pattern of anti-sovereigntist manipulation by EU forces again, without evidence. The idea that the EU is a “last stronghold of globalists” simplifies the complex ideological diversity of European political institutions. These misrepresentations function rhetorically to collapse diverse geopolitical phenomena into a single binary narrative us vs. them, East vs. West, sovereign vs. globalist which simplifies and distorts reality. Perhaps the most dangerous implication of the text is its rejection of neutrality and diplomacy as legitimate pathways to peace. It posits that any compromise even tactical would be equivalent to existential defeat. This approach forecloses the possibility of negotiated settlements and guarantees a protracted conflict, likely at great human and economic cost. It also advances a worldview in which sovereignty is redefined not by international consensus, but by brute military control. The buffer zone strategy explicitly calls for the absorption or neutralization of sovereign Ukrainian territory as a precondition for peace an imperial logic that recalls 19th- and early 20th-century realpolitik more than modern international norms. Ultimately, the text fuses Russian authoritarian nationalism with American reactionary populism in a way that is rhetorically compelling for certain audiences but strategically incoherent on the global stage. It appeals to a mythic vision of order, identity, and civilizational struggle, while ignoring the practical and humanitarian costs of warfare. It is ideologically significant as an example of how global right-wing movements are being rhetorically aligned, not necessarily through coherent policy interests, but through a shared sense of persecution by “globalist elites.” This ideological convergence deserves serious scrutiny not least because it relies on war, disinformation, and the abandonment of diplomacy as its preferred instruments.
Your narratives are too complicated for me to attempt to debunk. I am persuaded by John Mearsheimer's analysis that Russia is reacting to the expansion of NATO. In the original agreements between Russia and the West with Gorbachev NATO agreed NOT to expand and Putin has complained with every NATO expansion. Neutrality of Ukraine has always been Putin's primary demand which has always been ignored by the NATO. It is not a surprise that Putin has moved his military into Ukraine to resist the intentions of NATO.
I am persuaded by Putin's assertions at Valdai in October 2023 that expansion of Russia into Europe would be a losing strategy in the current world. Rather, harvesting the untapped resources contained within the Russian Federation will be a more productive use Russian energy.
Say what you will.. the EU / NATO actions to bring Ukraine into Europe will fail. If an all out war breaks out between NATO and Russia, Russia will have support from N Korea and China and will prevail over NATO at enormous cost of life. Putin will never accept a European Ukraine with new US military bases and a powerful Azov .