[I'm ignoring the obviously tendentious framing that ending the Russia-Ukraine War is meant to fight DEI (though it might!), or indeed that ending the war is the same as "backing Russia conquering Ukraine".]
The networks aren't only ethnic. Corruptocrat-in-Chief Biden and his son had a lot of Ukrainian "interests". Well, it could be Irish ethnic networks I guess: "The Protocols of the Elders of Erin"!
P.S. I think Nuland's name was Nudelman rather than Nulandson.
It's odd that Sailer, who was famously (and correctly) opposed to the neocon project to go to war with third world dictators, is strangely on board with the neocon project to go to war with second world nuclear powers.
"No War For Oil! ... " (which might have benefitted us if done competently), but " ... Yes War For Trannies!" (which has no upside whatsoever) is a peculiar paring of political philosophies.
What are you talking about? The only actual response he’s made to any comment is the one saying how this post went over the heads of a lot of readers (you), to which he agrees.
Planning on giving Putin whatever he wants and implying that Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Moldova are on their own is not exactly standing up to Putin.
It's worse than that even, as I said above if we get snookered into fighting WWIII on behalf of the coked up midget Khazarian Jew tool, all the rest of our agenda is down the shitter.
Go back to the barely sentient murk of Blue Sky where you belong. Hint we were first, I have been here for over two years have over 800 subscribers, and have dozens of long essays, I am going to guess without even looking at your profile you have been here months at most and likely not even that, and have written nothing of substance, let’s see do I win a prize?
I literally give zero fucks. I like that he kicked out USAID before it was cool, and I dislike coup master Victoria Nuland baiting the bear by fomenting coups and putting bio- weapons research labs in Ukraine.
It’s called a “false dilemma.” Favorite trick of similar pro-war types back in the W-Cheney admin. “Oh, you want to end the war? You must support terrorism, then! Checkmate, loser!”
I can’t say I’ve become any more of a fan of this childish tactic in the intervening 20 years, but human nature is what it is and “reason will not decide at last, the sword will decide.”
Russia conquered Ukraine 2 years ago. So long as Ukraine keeps sending forced conscripts to the frontline, Russia will keep slaughtering them. There is no credible Nato threat to Russia, European or American except MAD.
The real event right now is the Russia - US security pact which will undo 20 years of USA reneging on promises. As demanded by Russia from 2007 Munich conference onwards.
Everything re Ukraine right now is unveiling of old news, there are no new develoments. But Trump knows how to profit from truths.
Russia has had more casualties than the Ukraine and has had limited gains. Remember at the beginning of the war and there were armored columns moving toward Kyiv. And Russian has never managed to gain air superiority against the Ukraine that barely has an air force.
Which promises (not contradicting; honestly asking)? About the expansion of NATO? What else?
I see the message has got out on social media that we and the Russians promised to keep Ukraine secure in exchange for giving up nukes. Is it your contention that Russia feels that it doesn't have to do that because of similar promises from that era that the US has reneged on?
Russia has talked on and on and on for 20 years about Indivisble security - which means US putting nukes in romania and Poland does NOT improve US or European security, it makes it much worse because it compels Russia to react accordingly.
Russia has obviously been right for 20 years.
Much of the motivation for the Ukrainian SMO was to underline this point.
Finally Trump has worked out the obvious. Plus he can sell it to voters as ensuring US safety (true) and splitting Russia from China (completely untrue) and allowing US to tackle China (lesson not learnt).
This deal is the priority, what happens in Ukraine no one in Trump Administration cares about (but a mineral deal can be sold to naive voters).
Euro-Nato has been proven totally useless. its raison d'etre is a conventional war with Soviets/Russia in Poland or Ukraine and what just happened? No weapons, no armies, not guts, not tactics, no leaders. Sure Europe largely got this way because of US bullying, bribery and blackmail, but that isn't a reason to feel sorry for them (us for me). It also had NS2 destroyed by Americans and has suffered greatly economically.
Essentially EuroNato collapsed before 2022. Had it any leadership or integrity or just commonsense it would have imposed the Nato aggression into Ukraine and the Romanian and Polish missile centres as unwise.
Sure - where US reneged on missile deals, Russia felt able to break them too. So agreeing missile deals will certainly make US a lot safer (and Russia).
Absolutely renewed security deals are a good thing all around (except for Ukraine).
But only to a limited extent. There is a special Russian word used for USA - translates as "Agreement incapable". That is no one can possibly trust a deal signed of by USA because they break their word so frequently.
And Russian hypersonic missiles have advanced way beyond the ability for USA to match them.
Much of what you write makes sense to me. The disconnect might be that the average US citizen thinks 'well, obviously the US and NATO would never invade Russia but that Putin is a loon who wants to invade Europe". To them putting missiles in Poland looks defensive and the invasion of Ukraine looks offensive.
They also discuss only the past agreements that support their points. It's very difficult for me to get a handle on the situation even though I lived through it. Everyone else seems so certain.
Russia is in faster decline than the US. I don't see the hypersonic missile gap being a problem for us.
> BBC had a stock phrase for 3 years "Russia's entirely unprovoked full scale invasion of Ukraine."
In the US, the "60 Minutes" CBS News show took exactly this line, three days ago. Unless already knowledgeable, watching it represented the fast track towards acquiring negative insight.
All the mainstream news are about providing negative insight.
20 years ago when I had a demanding job where appearing to "know pretty much something about everything" was a good way to impress, I read the Economist religiously - about 90% of all articles on all topics (i skipped Africa) and including articles which in my region were web only.
Far from understanding everything, my knowledge was so thin spread I was unable to challenge anything except in my specialist areas. So I knew the Economist wrote corporate sponsored nonsense on Telecoms and vague Euro pap wishful thinking on E Europe. But had to assume it got everything else right.
It doesn't take that much extra effort to discover:
Almost all terrorism is US/UK/Israel sponsored, and none is Iran Sponsored (the "biggest state sponsor of terrorism" sponsors none of the 10 largest terrorist groups),
Ujghur repression is a made up story.
J6 is 95% made up (and a CNN producer was brought in to stage manage the J6 investigations).
Russiagate didn't happen AND it is very quietly acknowledged it didn't happen.
The list is long - you probably know as much of it as i do.
It's kind of funny how many american conservatives have a good opinion about Putin while russians right wingers see him as a godless globalist who flooded their country with muslims while persecuting nationalists.
Putin is a neo-Czar, and many of the things that were bad about Imperial Russia are back. Sucks to be a Russian idealist, also sucks to live in that neighborhood. Especially if your country includes ethnic/linguistic Russians among its residents, as part of the Soviet hangover.
On the other hand, the worst aspects of the USSR appear to be gone for good, which is a blessing for anyone who shares a planet with Russia.
Re: the Ukraine War, many conservatives seem to have as hard a time as progressives in considering two ideas at once. "Plenty of blame to go around" is the norm in international affairs; White Hats are the exception.
The Ukraine war still seems to be much like Georgia in 2008 on a grand scale, only Zelensky unlike Sakashvili has so far been successful in bouncing the US into supporting him in his blood rivalry. Trump is correct in that a peaceful settlement depends on Russia having a sphere of influence (which Zelensky also argued for when first elected).
Yes, but small countries should try not to antagonize their bigger neighbors. Unfortunately the Ukrainians were baited by the invade the world/invite the world crowd, who in the end could not fulfil their promises.
The problem with Ukraine is that it's 802 miles wide. A reasonable solution would be that Russian gets the East as a Belarussian client state, a neutral buffer state gets the mid-central region, and the EU/NATO gets the West (Lvov) chunk. But nobody knows how to negotiate that.
Without breaking up the country, Swiss-style federalism could be pursued, but it would still depend on the central government not joining international military alliances, which seems reasonable.
Russia cares much more about the Russians in "Novorossiya" (east/central/south Ukraine) than they did about South Ossetians in Georgia. They are winning on the battlefield and pushing the doughty Ukrainians towards collapse, October 1918 Western Front style. Later this year? They might hold out till 2026.
Russia appears willing to accept a "frozen conflict" outcome that leaves a rump Ukraine as a failed state. The foolish and reckless "Biden" (Nuland/Blinken/Austin/etc.) strategy provoked Russia and then punished them with economy-killing balls-to-the-walls sanctions etc. Russia being Russia (surprise), this clever strategy failed.
The risks were always high, and the potential benefits low. (The neoconservative dream was that Russia would splinter into a dozen nuclear-armed failed states -- that's a *desirable* outcome?)
This leaves the West (Trump, EU, etc.) with a very weak hand. Preening and moral posturing aside, Ukraine will be lucky to hold on to its remaining Black Sea port, Odessa.
The most astute military analyses are by (pro-Russia) pundits William Schryver and "Big Serge" on Substack, I can't locate the posts I wanted to link.
Amateurs like you know nothing and should shut up. Putin's party United Russia saved Russians from poverty, vastly increasing their purchasing power. Putin threw out the mainly Jewish oligarchs who were cutting up the Soviet industries and selling them for parts, throwing out the old people who lived in apartment buildings connected to the industries. Putin saved them. And you idiots call him "a neo-Czar!!!"
Disgusting.
Putin's party also reduced the crime rate that the neocon-loyal Yeltsin had allowed to grow at a rampant rate. With hard punishments, but also with job programs where criminals learn a trade and can work to cut their sentences, being integrated into society. This has enjoyed vast support in society. Meanwhile your neocons support the destruction of the rule of law in California and want that for all of the West.
While your Biden financed the illegal coup in Ukraine in 2014, Putin had supported new elections and encouraged Ukraine's legal president to negotiate with the protesters. He then supported the Minsk I and II agreements where the murderers in Kiev would let Russian Donbass be an autonomous region, like the other eight similar regions in Europe.
Instead the neocon-supported regime stole the pensions of the old people in Russian Crimea and Donbass, cut off all electricity and water and wheat trade, and started shelling the civilians in Donbass year after year. That's what you support.
The Ukies kidnapped ordinary men in occupied western Donbass, torturing them into confessing to being "spies." That's what you support.
In 2021 your beloved criminals increased the shelling of the civilians, from about 20 times a day to 100 times a day, as confirmed by UN observers. In February 2022 The shelling was increased to more than 1,000 times a day, even up to 2,000. That was in preparation for an invasion and ethnic cleansing by the Azov Brigade and other criminals, amassed in the east.
Then Russia LEGALLY intervened, in accordance with the UN rules that allow an emergency intervention to stop a war of aggression or ethnic cleansing. Putin ordered the army to be as careful as possible, even to avoid firing at Ukrainian soldiers at times. All he asked from Ukraine was that they honor the Minsk II treaty THEY HAD ALREADY SIGNED, and then ignored for seven years.
And Zelensky agreed to this in Turkey. Then Biden sent Boris Johnson to tell him he'd get no money, no guarantees for the peace, but he'd get unlimited money and weapons if he stuck to the plan to invade Donbass and massacre Russians. "Let's just fight it out."
That's when the peace agreement was almost completely finished already, and Putin and Zelensky would have met.
After that Putin has repeatedly asked for peace based on the Minsk II agreement that was ALREADY SIGNED in 2015. While the globalist Washington supported people who kept shelling the civilians in Donetsk every day, with U.S. artillery.
Oh, and Zelensky's "intelligence" chief murdered Ukraine's chief negotiator. For the crime of negotiating as he had been asked to do. Traitor! And also set out to murder critics all over Ukraine.
You: "Putin is a neo-Czar!" Typical of Biden supporters to lie.
"Godless globalist?" Quite the opposite. Putin is an Orthodox Christian. Well...sort of anyway. As such,he sees Russia as representing the traditional bulwark AGAINST the same.
A former KGB officer LARPing as orthodox is very common in Eastern Europe. It means nothing just empty talk. Putin's support for mass muslim immigration is in turn very real.
Traditional Russia has long been murdered by bolsheviks and her corpse looted by oligarchs.
"KGB officer!" LOL What a talking point you idiots use. Never mind that Putin has since then for decades improved the Russian economy and stopped the globalists from encircling Russia and creating a "color revolution". Like the one Biden financed in Ukraine, which people like you support. "Muh Ukrainian nationalism!"
Meanwhile they aid the corrupt Jew Zelensky in legalizing "pride parades" and let U.S. NGOs like Freedom House flood Ukraine with homosexual propaganda. While attacking Russians, erasing Russian literature and music, and Russian from schools and the public, and attacking the Russian Orthodox church. Beating up priests and churchgoers and illegally taking over church buildings.
"Russian nationalists" were armed by Ukraine to invade southern Russia, which they did for about a day before they took ordinary Russian people as hostages to demand a return to their benefactors on the Ukrainian side of the border. They pretended they were going to set up a "free Russia." NATIONALISM!!!!!!!
People like you push a lying view of history where "Ukraine" isn't a little dirt spot that Russia saved from Tartar slave traders. Where "Ukraine" is what the map shows today - borders created by the Soviets. Oh yeah, Putin is a "KGB agent," but no mention of how the Soviet Union put RUSSIAN land under Kiev administration for convenience, which you now pretend is "Ukraine." The Ukrainian peasants never built anything, it was Russians who built Donbass, Nikolaev, Odessa, and Kiev.
No. The majority of "russians right wingers" vote for Putin. His conservative party United Russia enjoys widespread support, with 72.22% of votes. So you are lying.
United Russia has banned all homosexual propaganda in the country, and Putin has condemned the mass immigration that he says is destroying the West. So he isn't "flooded their country." Your English is odd, gee, wonder where you come from.
The radical alternative who died from a bad heart in prison, Alexei Navalny, who Western media pretended was "Putin's rival" and the "opposition leader," only got a few percent of the vote for mayor of Moscow, and that was the peak of his career.
I think everyone sees that one has nothing to do with the other. What I'm not sure everyone sees is that one is real while the other is prejudiced mischaracterization.
No the point is we get snookered into WWIII that, that is what the deep state wants, and fighting it will be over. Surely Steve isn't tarded and knows this on some level?
You obviously don’t know Steve’s style or you would instantly recognize what he was doing here. This post is a statement about how stupid public polls are, not an actual representation of his views on any issue. You once corrected me when i responded seriously to a post that was clearly a joke, and now I’m happy to return the favor
I mean, a quick keyword search through steve’s page looking for the words “Ukraine” and “Russia” show that steve is NOT some kind of Ukraine shill, and never has been, nor is he Russia-deranged. At least in his writing. But he DOES frequently write about how retarded opinion polls are…
"What should Trump do to help the U.S.? 1. Let Craig in Maine rob banks. 2. Stop mass imigration. Aha! See, the poll result shows no one supports Craig in Maine's schemes!"
All about threat assessment. Identifying and fighting the present danger(s) which, if not defeated, would empower and make inevitable the existential threat looming behind it.
See "Joe Rogan Experience #2281 - Elon Musk" of Feb 28, 2025 for details.
I voted "Back Russia conquering Ukraine" i.e. Russia holding a Russian-speaking 20% of Ukraine while Ukrainians bash their heads against Russian defenses. I think it could actually work, as that's where all the US Derp State weirdos cycle through for apparatchik training.
I know what you're thinking Steve. You're thinking are the five biological research labs in Kyiv still in the hands of the famously incorruptible and scientifically rigorous Ukrainians. Yes Steve. Yes they are.
Seriously, Ukraine is a giant money-washing laundromat where God knows what has been going on for decades. Their government can't even implement a solid waste disposal system; they just hire somebody to dump everything in the countryside. I don't care which group of Slavic oligarchs rules over them.
While we're at it, let's do a poll for what we can do to uphold The Konstatooshun of The United States of America: 1. Invade a shambling Muslim Arab country on pure pretext. 2. Occupy a Pashtun tribal backwater for 20 years. 3. Lie back and enjoy all the New American mystery meats who have been encouraged to leave their homelands and go be someone else's problem.
Speaking of Neo-America, have you canvassed all your New American neighbors to see how many of them share your post-WW2 Atlanticist worldview? Maybe Europe where 80% of the young people wouldn't fight for their country and is destined to be occupied by 30 million surplus African men?
The dream of finally toppling the Tsar and freeing the Pale is over; we don't have the money or the people. There are three countries that matter and negotiating their spheres of interest going forward. There are maybe five or ten other serious countries on the planet (Canada and Mexico are not among them). Everyone else is along for the ride as human mutational load increases. Time for Americans to pull back to their homelands and prepare to defend them.
I have spoken to one of Steve's New American neighbors (1st generation born here) and he knows a lot about that part of the world. When the USA got involved in the war he had a kind of mixed opinion. Mostly he thought that the average American knew nothing about Ukraine and Ukrainians and if they did, they would spend zero dollars defending them.
The other, contrary opinion was that he thought Biden, perhaps inadvertently, was dealing with it brilliantly by supplying just enough money and weapons to slowly bleed Putin and Russia. He is of the pragmatic very old fashioned view that sometimes the big power has to throw a rival against the wall just to show the others we've still got it.
I'm more of the first position. The only thing that gives me pause is that we supposedly promised them security in exchange for giving up nukes. OTOH, I can't shake the feeling that we (i.e. one faction of the US govt) provoked Putin into this. He is also a POS, no real good guys in this situation.
Why is Trump appearing to support Putin? I'm remaining charitable and assuming he just really wants the war to stop and as a deal maker he assumes everyone has to give a little. The left in the US says no way Ukraine should give up any of its land because that will set a bad precedent. Better more people should die than give up the principle.
Of course such arguments always degenerate into arguments about whose land it rightfully is. Sometimes it's 'possession is nine tenths of the law' and sometimes is 'obviously the land belongs to the good guys'. Then we argue about who are the good guys.
Not referring to your neighbor so far as I know, but the US national security bureaucracy has got a number of Slavic entryists who, naturally, have an emotional stake back home. They should have stayed there.
I am familiar with a number of Syrian and Lebanese Christians and most of them are too disgusted with their countrymen to care what happens there any more.
Most of the Mexican nationalists seem to end up in California. Elsewhere they seem more interested in generating a placid Mex-American culture i.e. a better There, here. Trump's Sailer Strategy 2.0 peeled off a number of them from the Democrats.
The fact that a majority of American young people will be from countries that were bystanders to the Cold War and World War 2 is an underremarked fact. In 20 years this debate will be eem as remote and trivial as the Great American Crusade against Imperial Spain. We were actually lucky to win that one, with Americans using single-round Krag rifles and eating rations of embalmed beef.
Yep, the future culture of the US will be hard to predict. I don't have kids so I wonder often if we teach the young people to worship age of reason values, ethics, rule of law (as opposed to rule of man) etc. We already have abandoned the idea of higher education as anything other than job training. Don't empires tend to end up with two values- get power in the bureaucracy & make money any way you can?
> "The only thing that gives me pause is that we supposedly promised them security in exchange for giving up nukes."
Maybe, but OTOH those nukes belonged to the USSR, not to the new breakaway Republic of Ukraine, so arguably they were never Ukraine's in the first place.
Also, if the US is now in the business of honoring old political commitments (not actual Senate-approved treaties), we might fish out that old one about NATO "not moving one inch eastward" in return for Russian troops leaving Eastern European countries.
Or, alternatively, since the NATO didn't feel bound not to expand eastward, NATO could stop blaming Russia for sending troops back westwards.
It's no secret. Steve Sailer wishes to increase the reach of his ideas by positioning himself as the new political center. This strategy is spelled out by a recent article in New York Magazine:
"Yet if current trends toward partisan and racial polarization continue unabated, Sailerism may indeed come to represent a kind of uneasy center, flanked by identitarian leftism on one side and raw white nationalism on the other."
This strategy may work, but the risks are significant. The political center is fickle — it shifts back and forth. Today's hero may become tomorrow's villain. If Steve repeats the current wisdom too faithfully, he may induce cynicism and disillusionment in his followers, while failing to overcome the mistrust of the elites who dominate the political center. After all, he is an outsider who wants "in."
I'm not sure that "recent" is exactly the right word for an idea articulated in 2017, but, yeah, I'm against Wars of Conquest in the 21st Century. I'm too familiar with the Series of Unfortunate Events that ensued from 1914 to want to repeat them.
I wasn't judging you Steve. I was simply pointing out the hazards of your balancing act.
All public intellectuals have to be "situationally aware." If you deviate too far from the political center, your ideas will no longer be amplified by key people who might actually agree but are afraid to say so.
As for the current "situation," I will merely say that peace inevitably means compromise. I hope we will see an end to this tragic — and totally unnecessary — war.
Seriously, this is why it’s good to have people who have seen some of this stuff still around. Way too many of the kids don’t study history and don’t remember why everyone is so afraid of wars in Europe.
Why not both?
[I'm ignoring the obviously tendentious framing that ending the Russia-Ukraine War is meant to fight DEI (though it might!), or indeed that ending the war is the same as "backing Russia conquering Ukraine".]
Well, without Ukraine, its ethnic network of Nuland(son) and Vindiman would collapse, soooooo...
The networks aren't only ethnic. Corruptocrat-in-Chief Biden and his son had a lot of Ukrainian "interests". Well, it could be Irish ethnic networks I guess: "The Protocols of the Elders of Erin"!
P.S. I think Nuland's name was Nudelman rather than Nulandson.
Good ol' Fenian clique.
You are probably right about Victoria, but i do not know where to check.
It’s Nudelman according to Wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland
Wanting this 3 year old NeoCon war to end isn't backing Russia in conquering Ukraine.
Not voting in this nonsense poll.
It's odd that Sailer, who was famously (and correctly) opposed to the neocon project to go to war with third world dictators, is strangely on board with the neocon project to go to war with second world nuclear powers.
"No War For Oil! ... " (which might have benefitted us if done competently), but " ... Yes War For Trannies!" (which has no upside whatsoever) is a peculiar paring of political philosophies.
r/wooosh
https://open.substack.com/pub/stevesailer/p/my-first-substack-poll?r=18q98a&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=97892900
The prejudiced mischaracterization is part of the point. It’s called irony.
Is that why Steve is issuing "likes" to everyone who agrees with the prejudiced mischaracterization?
What are you talking about? The only actual response he’s made to any comment is the one saying how this post went over the heads of a lot of readers (you), to which he agrees.
Planning on giving Putin whatever he wants and implying that Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Moldova are on their own is not exactly standing up to Putin.
Nobody has ever heard of Moldova
It's worse than that even, as I said above if we get snookered into fighting WWIII on behalf of the coked up midget Khazarian Jew tool, all the rest of our agenda is down the shitter.
Go back to Unz where you belong.
Go back to the barely sentient murk of Blue Sky where you belong. Hint we were first, I have been here for over two years have over 800 subscribers, and have dozens of long essays, I am going to guess without even looking at your profile you have been here months at most and likely not even that, and have written nothing of substance, let’s see do I win a prize?
And a no posts, few subscribers woke/neo-con fusion Bulwark reader. In other words an unpaid tool of Jew war mongers.
EVERY SINGLE TIME!
Imagine missing the point this hard lmao
Imagine not telling me what the point is, while you think you are making a point.
I explained it to you in a different reply
Don’t play coy games with me, I am not a fag and not into you. Just get to the point.
Trump is a Russian asset. How would he behave differently if he wasn’t?
I literally give zero fucks. I like that he kicked out USAID before it was cool, and I dislike coup master Victoria Nuland baiting the bear by fomenting coups and putting bio- weapons research labs in Ukraine.
Don’t you have a very important appointment for your war mongers anonymous meeting you neo-con piece of shit?
Isn't the burden on you to prove why his policies couldn't be the same without being a Russian asset?
It’s called a “false dilemma.” Favorite trick of similar pro-war types back in the W-Cheney admin. “Oh, you want to end the war? You must support terrorism, then! Checkmate, loser!”
I can’t say I’ve become any more of a fan of this childish tactic in the intervening 20 years, but human nature is what it is and “reason will not decide at last, the sword will decide.”
Give me Perp Walks!
And 5 AM panty raids for documents.
In the Donbas.
Sometimes Steve's 3D chess is too much for me.
Russia conquered Ukraine 2 years ago. So long as Ukraine keeps sending forced conscripts to the frontline, Russia will keep slaughtering them. There is no credible Nato threat to Russia, European or American except MAD.
The real event right now is the Russia - US security pact which will undo 20 years of USA reneging on promises. As demanded by Russia from 2007 Munich conference onwards.
Everything re Ukraine right now is unveiling of old news, there are no new develoments. But Trump knows how to profit from truths.
Russia has had more casualties than the Ukraine and has had limited gains. Remember at the beginning of the war and there were armored columns moving toward Kyiv. And Russian has never managed to gain air superiority against the Ukraine that barely has an air force.
Limited gains? It has taken chunks out of Ukraine. John Mearsheimer was 100% correct about how this would play out.
hahahaha have you learnt nothing about western media reporting in the last 10 years?
Guest007 isn't mistaken, he's just deliberately lying. As he's a tranny, it comes second nature to him.
Which promises (not contradicting; honestly asking)? About the expansion of NATO? What else?
I see the message has got out on social media that we and the Russians promised to keep Ukraine secure in exchange for giving up nukes. Is it your contention that Russia feels that it doesn't have to do that because of similar promises from that era that the US has reneged on?
Russia has talked on and on and on for 20 years about Indivisble security - which means US putting nukes in romania and Poland does NOT improve US or European security, it makes it much worse because it compels Russia to react accordingly.
Russia has obviously been right for 20 years.
Much of the motivation for the Ukrainian SMO was to underline this point.
Finally Trump has worked out the obvious. Plus he can sell it to voters as ensuring US safety (true) and splitting Russia from China (completely untrue) and allowing US to tackle China (lesson not learnt).
This deal is the priority, what happens in Ukraine no one in Trump Administration cares about (but a mineral deal can be sold to naive voters).
Euro-Nato has been proven totally useless. its raison d'etre is a conventional war with Soviets/Russia in Poland or Ukraine and what just happened? No weapons, no armies, not guts, not tactics, no leaders. Sure Europe largely got this way because of US bullying, bribery and blackmail, but that isn't a reason to feel sorry for them (us for me). It also had NS2 destroyed by Americans and has suffered greatly economically.
Essentially EuroNato collapsed before 2022. Had it any leadership or integrity or just commonsense it would have imposed the Nato aggression into Ukraine and the Romanian and Polish missile centres as unwise.
Sure - where US reneged on missile deals, Russia felt able to break them too. So agreeing missile deals will certainly make US a lot safer (and Russia).
Absolutely renewed security deals are a good thing all around (except for Ukraine).
But only to a limited extent. There is a special Russian word used for USA - translates as "Agreement incapable". That is no one can possibly trust a deal signed of by USA because they break their word so frequently.
And Russian hypersonic missiles have advanced way beyond the ability for USA to match them.
Much of what you write makes sense to me. The disconnect might be that the average US citizen thinks 'well, obviously the US and NATO would never invade Russia but that Putin is a loon who wants to invade Europe". To them putting missiles in Poland looks defensive and the invasion of Ukraine looks offensive.
They also discuss only the past agreements that support their points. It's very difficult for me to get a handle on the situation even though I lived through it. Everyone else seems so certain.
Russia is in faster decline than the US. I don't see the hypersonic missile gap being a problem for us.
BBC had a stock phrase for 3 years "Russia's entirely unprovoked full scale invasion of Ukraine."
Trump said recently he understood why Putin reacted to what Nato was doing, and suddenly BBC calls it "Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine".
Funny how quickly some lies disappear when challenged. (This is Trump's super power - taking advantage of obvious lies")
Next step - the "full scale" lie.
> BBC had a stock phrase for 3 years "Russia's entirely unprovoked full scale invasion of Ukraine."
In the US, the "60 Minutes" CBS News show took exactly this line, three days ago. Unless already knowledgeable, watching it represented the fast track towards acquiring negative insight.
All the mainstream news are about providing negative insight.
20 years ago when I had a demanding job where appearing to "know pretty much something about everything" was a good way to impress, I read the Economist religiously - about 90% of all articles on all topics (i skipped Africa) and including articles which in my region were web only.
Far from understanding everything, my knowledge was so thin spread I was unable to challenge anything except in my specialist areas. So I knew the Economist wrote corporate sponsored nonsense on Telecoms and vague Euro pap wishful thinking on E Europe. But had to assume it got everything else right.
It doesn't take that much extra effort to discover:
Almost all terrorism is US/UK/Israel sponsored, and none is Iran Sponsored (the "biggest state sponsor of terrorism" sponsors none of the 10 largest terrorist groups),
Ujghur repression is a made up story.
J6 is 95% made up (and a CNN producer was brought in to stage manage the J6 investigations).
Russiagate didn't happen AND it is very quietly acknowledged it didn't happen.
The list is long - you probably know as much of it as i do.
FWIW, Sachs says in 1990 James Baker promised Gorbachev that NATO "wouldn't move one inch eastward."
I read that as well.
It's kind of funny how many american conservatives have a good opinion about Putin while russians right wingers see him as a godless globalist who flooded their country with muslims while persecuting nationalists.
Putin is a neo-Czar, and many of the things that were bad about Imperial Russia are back. Sucks to be a Russian idealist, also sucks to live in that neighborhood. Especially if your country includes ethnic/linguistic Russians among its residents, as part of the Soviet hangover.
On the other hand, the worst aspects of the USSR appear to be gone for good, which is a blessing for anyone who shares a planet with Russia.
Re: the Ukraine War, many conservatives seem to have as hard a time as progressives in considering two ideas at once. "Plenty of blame to go around" is the norm in international affairs; White Hats are the exception.
The best article I have read on Zelensky/Trump is by Aussie analyst Gray Connolly, "Reflections on the Novorossiya War" -- https://arena.org.au/reflections-on-the-novorossiya-war/ Note that he wrote it in 2023.
The Ukraine war still seems to be much like Georgia in 2008 on a grand scale, only Zelensky unlike Sakashvili has so far been successful in bouncing the US into supporting him in his blood rivalry. Trump is correct in that a peaceful settlement depends on Russia having a sphere of influence (which Zelensky also argued for when first elected).
Putin wants to replace Zelenskyy with with a toady like the leader of Belarus.
Yes, but small countries should try not to antagonize their bigger neighbors. Unfortunately the Ukrainians were baited by the invade the world/invite the world crowd, who in the end could not fulfil their promises.
The problem with Ukraine is that it's 802 miles wide. A reasonable solution would be that Russian gets the East as a Belarussian client state, a neutral buffer state gets the mid-central region, and the EU/NATO gets the West (Lvov) chunk. But nobody knows how to negotiate that.
Without breaking up the country, Swiss-style federalism could be pursued, but it would still depend on the central government not joining international military alliances, which seems reasonable.
Minsk III, except in good faith this time. Convincing Russia that it's in their interest would be the rub.
Russia cares much more about the Russians in "Novorossiya" (east/central/south Ukraine) than they did about South Ossetians in Georgia. They are winning on the battlefield and pushing the doughty Ukrainians towards collapse, October 1918 Western Front style. Later this year? They might hold out till 2026.
Russia appears willing to accept a "frozen conflict" outcome that leaves a rump Ukraine as a failed state. The foolish and reckless "Biden" (Nuland/Blinken/Austin/etc.) strategy provoked Russia and then punished them with economy-killing balls-to-the-walls sanctions etc. Russia being Russia (surprise), this clever strategy failed.
The risks were always high, and the potential benefits low. (The neoconservative dream was that Russia would splinter into a dozen nuclear-armed failed states -- that's a *desirable* outcome?)
This leaves the West (Trump, EU, etc.) with a very weak hand. Preening and moral posturing aside, Ukraine will be lucky to hold on to its remaining Black Sea port, Odessa.
The most astute military analyses are by (pro-Russia) pundits William Schryver and "Big Serge" on Substack, I can't locate the posts I wanted to link.
"Neo-Czar" LOL Look at the little neocon lover.
Amateurs like you know nothing and should shut up. Putin's party United Russia saved Russians from poverty, vastly increasing their purchasing power. Putin threw out the mainly Jewish oligarchs who were cutting up the Soviet industries and selling them for parts, throwing out the old people who lived in apartment buildings connected to the industries. Putin saved them. And you idiots call him "a neo-Czar!!!"
Disgusting.
Putin's party also reduced the crime rate that the neocon-loyal Yeltsin had allowed to grow at a rampant rate. With hard punishments, but also with job programs where criminals learn a trade and can work to cut their sentences, being integrated into society. This has enjoyed vast support in society. Meanwhile your neocons support the destruction of the rule of law in California and want that for all of the West.
While your Biden financed the illegal coup in Ukraine in 2014, Putin had supported new elections and encouraged Ukraine's legal president to negotiate with the protesters. He then supported the Minsk I and II agreements where the murderers in Kiev would let Russian Donbass be an autonomous region, like the other eight similar regions in Europe.
Instead the neocon-supported regime stole the pensions of the old people in Russian Crimea and Donbass, cut off all electricity and water and wheat trade, and started shelling the civilians in Donbass year after year. That's what you support.
The Ukies kidnapped ordinary men in occupied western Donbass, torturing them into confessing to being "spies." That's what you support.
In 2021 your beloved criminals increased the shelling of the civilians, from about 20 times a day to 100 times a day, as confirmed by UN observers. In February 2022 The shelling was increased to more than 1,000 times a day, even up to 2,000. That was in preparation for an invasion and ethnic cleansing by the Azov Brigade and other criminals, amassed in the east.
Then Russia LEGALLY intervened, in accordance with the UN rules that allow an emergency intervention to stop a war of aggression or ethnic cleansing. Putin ordered the army to be as careful as possible, even to avoid firing at Ukrainian soldiers at times. All he asked from Ukraine was that they honor the Minsk II treaty THEY HAD ALREADY SIGNED, and then ignored for seven years.
And Zelensky agreed to this in Turkey. Then Biden sent Boris Johnson to tell him he'd get no money, no guarantees for the peace, but he'd get unlimited money and weapons if he stuck to the plan to invade Donbass and massacre Russians. "Let's just fight it out."
That's when the peace agreement was almost completely finished already, and Putin and Zelensky would have met.
After that Putin has repeatedly asked for peace based on the Minsk II agreement that was ALREADY SIGNED in 2015. While the globalist Washington supported people who kept shelling the civilians in Donetsk every day, with U.S. artillery.
Oh, and Zelensky's "intelligence" chief murdered Ukraine's chief negotiator. For the crime of negotiating as he had been asked to do. Traitor! And also set out to murder critics all over Ukraine.
You: "Putin is a neo-Czar!" Typical of Biden supporters to lie.
> Look at the little neocon lover
Then tl;dr
Puzzle out why I linked that Gray Connolly essay, you silly man.
If you then re-read my (brief!) comment and apologize, I'll accept. But I'm not holding my breath.
"Godless globalist?" Quite the opposite. Putin is an Orthodox Christian. Well...sort of anyway. As such,he sees Russia as representing the traditional bulwark AGAINST the same.
A former KGB officer LARPing as orthodox is very common in Eastern Europe. It means nothing just empty talk. Putin's support for mass muslim immigration is in turn very real.
Traditional Russia has long been murdered by bolsheviks and her corpse looted by oligarchs.
Serfs ruled by thugs, then, now and forever.
"KGB officer!" LOL What a talking point you idiots use. Never mind that Putin has since then for decades improved the Russian economy and stopped the globalists from encircling Russia and creating a "color revolution". Like the one Biden financed in Ukraine, which people like you support. "Muh Ukrainian nationalism!"
Meanwhile they aid the corrupt Jew Zelensky in legalizing "pride parades" and let U.S. NGOs like Freedom House flood Ukraine with homosexual propaganda. While attacking Russians, erasing Russian literature and music, and Russian from schools and the public, and attacking the Russian Orthodox church. Beating up priests and churchgoers and illegally taking over church buildings.
"Russian nationalists" were armed by Ukraine to invade southern Russia, which they did for about a day before they took ordinary Russian people as hostages to demand a return to their benefactors on the Ukrainian side of the border. They pretended they were going to set up a "free Russia." NATIONALISM!!!!!!!
People like you push a lying view of history where "Ukraine" isn't a little dirt spot that Russia saved from Tartar slave traders. Where "Ukraine" is what the map shows today - borders created by the Soviets. Oh yeah, Putin is a "KGB agent," but no mention of how the Soviet Union put RUSSIAN land under Kiev administration for convenience, which you now pretend is "Ukraine." The Ukrainian peasants never built anything, it was Russians who built Donbass, Nikolaev, Odessa, and Kiev.
"Muh nationalism!"
> "Muh nationalism!" You want Ukraine to
Don't stop now, go ahead and tell me what you really
"Don't stop now, go ahead and tell me what you really"
? I'll say the same then. "Don't stop now, go ahead and tell me what you really" what?
... think.
(You fixed your dangling conclusion with the Edit button, thanks ☺)
No. The majority of "russians right wingers" vote for Putin. His conservative party United Russia enjoys widespread support, with 72.22% of votes. So you are lying.
United Russia has banned all homosexual propaganda in the country, and Putin has condemned the mass immigration that he says is destroying the West. So he isn't "flooded their country." Your English is odd, gee, wonder where you come from.
The radical alternative who died from a bad heart in prison, Alexei Navalny, who Western media pretended was "Putin's rival" and the "opposition leader," only got a few percent of the vote for mayor of Moscow, and that was the peak of his career.
He represents liberal europhile end of the political spectrum in Russia.
I think the point may be that one has nothing to do with the other.
Exactly. Not sure how so many people appear to have missed this.
I can see that Steve may have been archly mocking the dialectic but I still had fun on my rant.
I think everyone sees that one has nothing to do with the other. What I'm not sure everyone sees is that one is real while the other is prejudiced mischaracterization.
No the point is we get snookered into WWIII that, that is what the deep state wants, and fighting it will be over. Surely Steve isn't tarded and knows this on some level?
You obviously don’t know Steve’s style or you would instantly recognize what he was doing here. This post is a statement about how stupid public polls are, not an actual representation of his views on any issue. You once corrected me when i responded seriously to a post that was clearly a joke, and now I’m happy to return the favor
Then Steve’a readers are tarded because most of them took the bait.
Yes.
WTF am I doing here in this dysgenic comments section then?
I frequently ask that question myself.
I came to substack from twitter to escape this sort of thing
I mean, a quick keyword search through steve’s page looking for the words “Ukraine” and “Russia” show that steve is NOT some kind of Ukraine shill, and never has been, nor is he Russia-deranged. At least in his writing. But he DOES frequently write about how retarded opinion polls are…
Steve, I think your poll flew over the heads of some of your readers.
Indeed.
You obviously have never played seven dimensional chess, or dungeons & dragons.
I'm not sure what percentage of the commenters here have played D&D, but it's probably over 50.
I played D&D exactly twice. I have very little tolerance for hobbitry and the like
"What should Trump do to help the U.S.? 1. Let Craig in Maine rob banks. 2. Stop mass imigration. Aha! See, the poll result shows no one supports Craig in Maine's schemes!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Do I get a vote?
I’m on Team Craig all the way, ride or die!
I'm a centrist. Deport all immigrants and trannies to Russia ans force them to enlist in order to help Putin conquer Ukraine.
Points for being original! Perhaps the Gazans could go there too, letting Trump develop it as per his video (including golden statue of Trump).
Gazans are the obvious choice for a buffer state between them.
Go ahead and get controversial
That was enlightening, thank you.
HAHAHA-HAAAHAAAHAAA-HAHAHA!
Getting an early start on April 1, aren't you Steve?
All about threat assessment. Identifying and fighting the present danger(s) which, if not defeated, would empower and make inevitable the existential threat looming behind it.
See "Joe Rogan Experience #2281 - Elon Musk" of Feb 28, 2025 for details.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSOxPJD-VNo
This is a pretty good way to measure the lizard man constant for your future polls.
I voted "Back Russia conquering Ukraine" i.e. Russia holding a Russian-speaking 20% of Ukraine while Ukrainians bash their heads against Russian defenses. I think it could actually work, as that's where all the US Derp State weirdos cycle through for apparatchik training.
I know what you're thinking Steve. You're thinking are the five biological research labs in Kyiv still in the hands of the famously incorruptible and scientifically rigorous Ukrainians. Yes Steve. Yes they are.
Seriously, Ukraine is a giant money-washing laundromat where God knows what has been going on for decades. Their government can't even implement a solid waste disposal system; they just hire somebody to dump everything in the countryside. I don't care which group of Slavic oligarchs rules over them.
While we're at it, let's do a poll for what we can do to uphold The Konstatooshun of The United States of America: 1. Invade a shambling Muslim Arab country on pure pretext. 2. Occupy a Pashtun tribal backwater for 20 years. 3. Lie back and enjoy all the New American mystery meats who have been encouraged to leave their homelands and go be someone else's problem.
Speaking of Neo-America, have you canvassed all your New American neighbors to see how many of them share your post-WW2 Atlanticist worldview? Maybe Europe where 80% of the young people wouldn't fight for their country and is destined to be occupied by 30 million surplus African men?
The dream of finally toppling the Tsar and freeing the Pale is over; we don't have the money or the people. There are three countries that matter and negotiating their spheres of interest going forward. There are maybe five or ten other serious countries on the planet (Canada and Mexico are not among them). Everyone else is along for the ride as human mutational load increases. Time for Americans to pull back to their homelands and prepare to defend them.
I have spoken to one of Steve's New American neighbors (1st generation born here) and he knows a lot about that part of the world. When the USA got involved in the war he had a kind of mixed opinion. Mostly he thought that the average American knew nothing about Ukraine and Ukrainians and if they did, they would spend zero dollars defending them.
The other, contrary opinion was that he thought Biden, perhaps inadvertently, was dealing with it brilliantly by supplying just enough money and weapons to slowly bleed Putin and Russia. He is of the pragmatic very old fashioned view that sometimes the big power has to throw a rival against the wall just to show the others we've still got it.
I'm more of the first position. The only thing that gives me pause is that we supposedly promised them security in exchange for giving up nukes. OTOH, I can't shake the feeling that we (i.e. one faction of the US govt) provoked Putin into this. He is also a POS, no real good guys in this situation.
Why is Trump appearing to support Putin? I'm remaining charitable and assuming he just really wants the war to stop and as a deal maker he assumes everyone has to give a little. The left in the US says no way Ukraine should give up any of its land because that will set a bad precedent. Better more people should die than give up the principle.
Of course such arguments always degenerate into arguments about whose land it rightfully is. Sometimes it's 'possession is nine tenths of the law' and sometimes is 'obviously the land belongs to the good guys'. Then we argue about who are the good guys.
Not referring to your neighbor so far as I know, but the US national security bureaucracy has got a number of Slavic entryists who, naturally, have an emotional stake back home. They should have stayed there.
I am familiar with a number of Syrian and Lebanese Christians and most of them are too disgusted with their countrymen to care what happens there any more.
Most of the Mexican nationalists seem to end up in California. Elsewhere they seem more interested in generating a placid Mex-American culture i.e. a better There, here. Trump's Sailer Strategy 2.0 peeled off a number of them from the Democrats.
The fact that a majority of American young people will be from countries that were bystanders to the Cold War and World War 2 is an underremarked fact. In 20 years this debate will be eem as remote and trivial as the Great American Crusade against Imperial Spain. We were actually lucky to win that one, with Americans using single-round Krag rifles and eating rations of embalmed beef.
Yep, the future culture of the US will be hard to predict. I don't have kids so I wonder often if we teach the young people to worship age of reason values, ethics, rule of law (as opposed to rule of man) etc. We already have abandoned the idea of higher education as anything other than job training. Don't empires tend to end up with two values- get power in the bureaucracy & make money any way you can?
> "The only thing that gives me pause is that we supposedly promised them security in exchange for giving up nukes."
Maybe, but OTOH those nukes belonged to the USSR, not to the new breakaway Republic of Ukraine, so arguably they were never Ukraine's in the first place.
Also, if the US is now in the business of honoring old political commitments (not actual Senate-approved treaties), we might fish out that old one about NATO "not moving one inch eastward" in return for Russian troops leaving Eastern European countries.
Or, alternatively, since the NATO didn't feel bound not to expand eastward, NATO could stop blaming Russia for sending troops back westwards.
Yep. I do get the sense that people arguing against making a deal to end the war are being very selective in their memories of agreements.
r/woosh
I understand what Steve Sailer is trying to do. Unfortunately, it has a high risk of backfiring ... badly.
Would you elaborate? I'm a big fan.
I believe there are enough comments and votes now that it won't matter if you give the game away.
It's no secret. Steve Sailer wishes to increase the reach of his ideas by positioning himself as the new political center. This strategy is spelled out by a recent article in New York Magazine:
"Yet if current trends toward partisan and racial polarization continue unabated, Sailerism may indeed come to represent a kind of uneasy center, flanked by identitarian leftism on one side and raw white nationalism on the other."
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/04/steve-sailer-invented-identity-politics-for-the-alt-right.html
This strategy may work, but the risks are significant. The political center is fickle — it shifts back and forth. Today's hero may become tomorrow's villain. If Steve repeats the current wisdom too faithfully, he may induce cynicism and disillusionment in his followers, while failing to overcome the mistrust of the elites who dominate the political center. After all, he is an outsider who wants "in."
I'm not sure that "recent" is exactly the right word for an idea articulated in 2017, but, yeah, I'm against Wars of Conquest in the 21st Century. I'm too familiar with the Series of Unfortunate Events that ensued from 1914 to want to repeat them.
I wasn't judging you Steve. I was simply pointing out the hazards of your balancing act.
All public intellectuals have to be "situationally aware." If you deviate too far from the political center, your ideas will no longer be amplified by key people who might actually agree but are afraid to say so.
As for the current "situation," I will merely say that peace inevitably means compromise. I hope we will see an end to this tragic — and totally unnecessary — war.
Seriously, this is why it’s good to have people who have seen some of this stuff still around. Way too many of the kids don’t study history and don’t remember why everyone is so afraid of wars in Europe.