Post

2/ Starting strong by positioning ending the war as a choice for Europe to make. Putin just wanted a 'sensible security pact', that's why he enshrined Russian ownership of four regions of Ukraine into the Russian constitution and tried to take Kyiv. Just a smol, sensible bean.

3/ So much to unpack here. First, the 'forever war' in this case is entirely Putin's choice. He could declare 'victory' or 'mission accomplished' or nothing at all and just withdraw to Russia's borders at literally any time. Macron isn't dragooning Russian troops into attacks on Kherson.

4/ The sanctions bit of this is also very dumb. It assumes Europeans thought sanctions would, for pretty much the first time in human history, topple a regime. Not signal opposition (which they did) Not slow down Russia's economy (which they did) Not starve Russia's warmachine (which they did).

5/ Yeah dude, Russia's economy is going great guns. They're crushing it. This is the kind of economic inisght and analysis that made Yanis such an invaluable asset to Greece. Is monthly inflation of 6% and a 15% interest rate good, Yanis? Military Keynsianism lmao.

6/ The strategy has been give Ukraine support so it can keep killing Russians until the price becomes unsustainable. It's not a perfect plan, and it's one both Europe and the US have been interrmitent on executing, but it's clearly working. Don't take my word for it, read Russian mil-bloggers.

7/ *"What the fuck are you talking about, Jesse?" meme* So a (US created) energy crisis in April of 2026 will compel the EU to abandon Ukraine and accept a peace deal that will see US owned pipelines that won't be finished for years eventually sell it Russian gas? Are you fucking high buddy?

8/ Every analyst who actually knows what they're talking about has been clear that while higher oil/gas prices as a result of the Strait crisis offer a reprieve for Russia, they don't solve any of their problems. It's a bandaid, not a prosthetic. Also, Ukrainian drones are working on it 😘.

9/ The 'hitler' stuff makes me really angry, because as always it positions the real problem not as the bad people doing bad things, but as the tone and linguistic choices of those condemning them. It's the "sure misogyny is bad, but feminists are so LOUD" of geopolotics. Fuck off Yanis.

10/ This just gets repetitive. It presumes Europe has a "peace" button it can push whenever but is too scared to for optics reasons. It presumes Putin is telling the truth that his sole concern is Russia's security, which even Putin's speeches make clear is not the point.

26 reposts438 likes

fucker said right before the invasion it's all about restoring pre-1917 borders. why is everyone acting like that never happened, like he's not just gonna wait and start another war of conquest if europe capitulates to his demands.

11/ First, lmao at the idea that Putin needs actual concessions to sell the war to his domestic constituency. He could declare tomorrow that the war is a crushing victory and that they've liberated brother Russians from the pedo-gays, and everyone would cheer. He just lies and invents things!

12/ Second, and setting aside the idea that big countries should get to veto the foreign policy choices of their smaller neighbours because something something Mearsheimer Spheres of Influence Realism... ... there were no NATO troops in Ukraine and none likely! Also, it's a DEFENSIVE alliance.

i like how that entire line about "all agreements must offer each signatory gains" just got trashed by real world events as trump declares victory over iran in a ceasfire deal that is worse in every way for the usa than the status quo ante

Thank you!!!! I make this point all the time. It's a defensive alliance! You shouldn't be scared of having a NATO country as your neighbor UNLESS you plan to invade them, ffs.

13/ Thirdly, this again simply ignores the literally hours of rambling speeches Putin has given about how Ukraine is a part of Russia, how it's not a real country, how it was stolen from Moscow etc. It cherry picks one of the 7 justifications Putin has offered for war.

14/ Fourthly, is the problem that NATO forces in Ukraine would be too strong for Russia to tolerate, or too weak and easily swept aside because it's all Starmer can muster? The goal of a peacekeeping force would be as a tripwire, so an attack is unthinkable. Children get this.

NATO isn't defensive: it's a western expansion & imperialism project, and that's why the Strait of Hormuz is chock full of British and French warships, and why German and Canadian and Polish special forces units are securing Tehran right now... /s shouldn't be necessary, but this is the internet

I wouldn't trust the judgement of anyone who fails the easiest credulity test in 80 years. Because it is unlikely that is the only thing he gets catastrophically wrong. I think it is just a good heuristic, especially in topics where I don't have the required expertise to judge for myself.

yeah it was bizarre even under Stalin (greatest mass murderer of all time?) but even more ridiculous after Russia's post soviet descent into a corrupt, hyper-ethno-nationalist, right wing, police state oligarchy/autocracy.

yes we know Putin only negotiates to buy time and the only peace proposals are completely unacceptable to Ukraine - and would lead only to greater territorial demands later (in fact there is a Hitler analogy after all: appeasement won't work).