Again, it's all part of the plan, which is referred to as the butterfly revolution, by Curtis Yarvin. Leaders that have literally invested in this platform are buying into this nonsense. These guys have polarized the two parties to a point all weaknesses are surfacing. It isn't about democrats vs republicans. It's just working class vs the billionaires. You know the ppl sitting behind Trump at his inauguration. Literally, they want to break apart the US and discredit the constitution. Unless we come together and carve a new narrative that works. These guys may succeed and you can kiss your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness goodbye, as well bill of rights.
Peter Theil, JD Vance, Marc Andreesen, Garry Tan, Srinivasan, and many others, wanting to overthrow democracy and dissolve nation states. This effort is to establish Network States with those that worship them, sycophants and cults. They want to transform the US into an Autocracy. The polarization of the media and political parties is on purpose. They want America to fall. It's not a secret, not a conspiracy theory. It's definitely being rolled out by billionaires. It would be wise for others here to really do your research and understand why we are being polarized to hate each other. Enter the butterfly revolution:
1. Reboot (“full-power start”) Suspend or bypass existing constitutional limits; concentrate absolute sovereignty in one new organization—analogous to Allied occupation powers in post-1945 Japan/Germany. Eliminate checks and balances that block rapid change.
2. CEO-Monarch model A single executive (chosen like a corporate CEO) rules; the former president becomes a figurehead “chairman of the board.” Treat the state as a firm run for efficiency, not democratic representation.
3. RAGE strategy “Retire All Government Employees” by mass-firing the civil service and replacing it with loyal appointees. Remove institutional resistance (“the Cathedral”) and ensure obedience.
4. Parallel regime Build a fully staffed shadow government in exile before inauguration; unveil it on Day 1 to take over agencies at once. Prevent the bureaucratic slow-rolling that stymied Trump’s first term.
5. Media & academia clampdown Defund or shutter universities and independent press seen as hostile. Break what Yarvin calls the Cathedral’s cultural dominance.
I appreciate your response and agree with it, but don’t quite get the emphasis on polarization. They don’t want two polarized media sources, they want one completely controlled propaganda source. And I don’t see how it’s playing into their hands or something being “polarized” against billionaires and trump supporters.
Yarvin and Srinivasan have been described as favoring deliberate polarization to destabilizing established narratives. The intent is to surface competing extremes. They view polarizing media as a way of delegitimizing our current framework of government. Yarvin specifically proposes the deconstruction, even abolition, of current democratic institutions, replacing them with a CEO-led or monarchist. Their intent is to accelerate the cycle of systemic breakdown and renewal, so their version of autocracy can emerge in the vacuum.
Oh totally, again 100% with you that they are intentionally (and sadly it seems, successfully) breaking down democracy in the US and elsewhere.
I also believe that there is astroturfing in online comment sections and occasionally embedded agents in opposition movements to push extreme and hostile "wedge" views that would split otherwise potential allies.
But a lot of it is natural resistance to being attacked-
Am I "polarized" against Trump and Trump voters because of a deliberate campaign, or because they are working to make my life unlivable, y'know? That sort of polarization I don't really have a problem with.
It's all part of the plan, which is referred to as the butterfly revolution, by Curtis Yarvin. Leaders that have literally invested in this platform are buying into this nonsense. Peter Theil, JD Vance, Marc Andreesen, Garry Tan, Srinivasan, and many others, wanting to overthrow democracy and dissolve nation states. This effort is to establish Network States with those that worship them, sycophants and cults. They want to transform the US into an Autocracy. The polarization of the media and political parties is on purpose. They want America to fall. It's not a secret, not a conspiracy theory. It's definitely being rolled out by billionaires. It would be wise for others here to really do your research and understand why we are being polarized to hate each other. Enter butterfly revolution:
1. Reboot (“full-power start”) Suspend or bypass existing constitutional limits; concentrate absolute sovereignty in one new organization—analogous to Allied occupation powers in post-1945 Japan/Germany. Eliminate checks and balances that block rapid change.
2. CEO-Monarch model A single executive (chosen like a corporate CEO) rules; the former president becomes a figurehead “chairman of the board.” Treat the state as a firm run for efficiency, not democratic representation.
3. RAGE strategy “Retire All Government Employees” by mass-firing the civil service and replacing it with loyal appointees. Remove institutional resistance (“the Cathedral”) and ensure obedience.
4. Parallel regime Build a fully staffed shadow government in exile before inauguration; unveil it on Day 1 to take over agencies at once. Prevent the bureaucratic slow-rolling that stymied Trump’s first term.
5. Media & academia clampdown Defund or shutter universities and independent press seen as hostile. Break what Yarvin calls the Cathedral’s cultural dominance.
Immigration is actually directly related to how CEOs and VCs intend to change the landscape for all things government related, and democracy as a whole. There is very much a subjective intent to tear down the rule of law, the rights that safeguard Americans as a whole, starting with immigration. IT's an entry point, a target to whittle away basic rights of the average American. Peter Thiel touches on this need for a tech revolution in his paper "The Straussian Moment", https://www.hoover.org/research/peter-thiel-straussian-momen..., who also funded JD Vance's rise to VP, and DJT.
These guys, "Tech Bros", love the concepts written in Srinivasan's book "the Network State", and want to replace our current government with distributed monarchies. Srinivasan, Thiel, Andresen, and Curtis Yarvin actually have a documented plan to achieve this which is being executed, to a "T", which involves attacking immigration, not just as a distraction so they can attack the courts directly, but also cause it's part of their vision. This plan is referred to the butterfly revolution, by Curtis Yarvin, which states the following:
1. Reboot (“full-power start”) Suspend or bypass existing constitutional limits; concentrate absolute sovereignty in one new organization—analogous to Allied occupation powers in post-1945 Japan/Germany. Eliminate checks and balances that block rapid change.
2. CEO-Monarch model A single executive (chosen like a corporate CEO) rules; the former president becomes a figurehead “chairman of the board.” Treat the state as a firm run for efficiency, not democratic representation.
3. RAGE strategy “Retire All Government Employees” by mass-firing the civil service and replacing it with loyal appointees. Remove institutional resistance (“the Cathedral”) and ensure obedience.
4. Parallel regime Build a fully staffed shadow government in exile before inauguration; unveil it on Day 1 to take over agencies at once. Prevent the bureaucratic slow-rolling that stymied Trump’s first term.
5. Media & academia clampdown Defund or shutter universities and independent press seen as hostile. Break what Yarvin calls the Cathedral’s cultural dominance.
Curtis Yarvin's writings include pointed attacks on immigration, both as a policy and as a reflection of deeper systemic problems. He uses immigration as an example to argue for the failure of democracy and to advocate for his preferred model of authoritarian governance. He also frames immigration debates as distractions from what he sees as the real issues-namely, the incompetence and self-serving nature of current elites and institutions.
Do you understand why the current administration would want to attack immigration? Altman, Theil, and others(Tech Bros) that manage YC, Palantir, OpenAI. A16Z prescribe to these beliefs. It is no secret, no conspiracy, they publicly talk about this. How do you feel about their approach, and YC's involvement, to changing governance and the future of our country? How do feel about Immigration as a tactic to attack the judicial branch as well assault innocent legal civilians with ICE, which is part of their reboot strategy?
YC does try to bury this topic, but it needs to be discussed. Developer and engineers need to be aware of the intent some of these corporations have in mind for their temporary employment. I say temporary as they intend to automate away the whole workforce and build utopias in their name. This isn't secret or a "deep state", they've plainly stated this agenda publicly and have written material online selling this agenda to other billionaires. Look at https://www.praxisnation.com. This is also referred to as Freedom Cities in Trumps presser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJA_GBhCGgE Many people will die in the pursuit of this :/
Yep, I would've voted for Bernie and it's important for the greater population to understand that Trump and the GOP have basically done nothing to curb abuse of the LEGAL immigration system. Elon and Big Tech WANTS Trump to import infinity foreign labor to continue driving wages and opportunity down for American tech workers.
The fact that only a 3.5% remittance tax on non-digital payments was barely implemented is pathetic.
Thiel is one of many billionaires that have veered off track into a more dystopian future, he definitely intends to use AI to manipulate, distort truth, and create distractions, from what's really taking place. The dismantlement of democracy to networked monarchies. It's nothing secret, Theil an d Yarvin describe their motivation in great detail in interviews with New York Times and the Hoover Institution. How do you guys feel about destroying democracy for dictatorships lead by billionaires? They have been pushing the butterfly revolution:
Key elements of Yarvin’s proposal include:
A “full power start” or “reboot” of the U.S. government: This would involve dissolving the existing constitutional order and giving total authority to a single organization or leader, similar to the powers held by Allied occupation authorities in postwar Japan and Germany.
The "RAGE" strategy: Yarvin calls for the mass firing (“Retire All Government Employees”) of the federal workforce, replacing them with loyalists to the new CEO or monarch.
Bypassing traditional democratic institutions: Courts, Congress, and the press would be sidelined or ignored, with the new executive ruling by decree and suppressing dissent from universities and media—institutions Yarvin derides as “The Cathedral”.
Mobilization of popular support: Yarvin envisions a scenario where a charismatic leader (such as Trump) could call supporters into the streets to pressure institutions into compliance with the new regime.
These systems do work, quite well. Especially the latest release of Claude. Palantir is using AI to process your IRS information without your consent, https://archive.is/QAY9E. This should concern everybody. Not only can this information be used to determine specific account details. They can use this to target individuals which don't align with the current administration's agenda, as well exclude hiring base of political alignment. They could also use this data to exclude and discriminate those against Peter Theil's network state agenda aka "Freedom Cities", but it seems everybody is complacent with that.
Hey Peter, what are your thoughts on networks states and the methods tech CEOS and VCs are using to push the working class towards Techno feudalism? Do you think Peter Thiel using Palantir to mine US tax payers information, to help drive and target innocent civilians towards their vision, is legal? Should the constitution exist or do we need to be conquered and lead by monarchies? Most importantly, do you believe the supreme court should exist to serve its purpose in our system of checks and balances?
Certainly :) Immigration is actually directly related to how CEOs and VC intend to change the landscape for all things government related, and democracy as a whole. There is very much a subjective intent to tear down the rule of law, the rights that safeguard Americans as a whole, starting with immigration. IT's an entry point, a target to whittle away basic rights of the average American. Peter Thiel touches on this need for a tech revolution in his paper "The Straussian Moment", https://www.hoover.org/research/peter-thiel-straussian-momen..., who also funded JD Vance's rise to VP. These guys love the concepts written in Sirrivassan's book "the Network State", and want to replace our current government with distributed monarchies. Sirrivassan, Thiel, Andresen, and Curtis Yarvin actually have a documented plan to achieve this which is being executed, to a "T", which involves attacking immigration, not just as a distraction so they can attack the courts directly, but also cause it's part of their vision. Curtis Yarvin's writings include pointed attacks on immigration, both as a policy and as a reflection of deeper systemic problems. He uses immigration as an example to argue for the failure of democracy and to advocate for his preferred model of authoritarian governance. He also frames immigration debates as distractions from what he sees as the real issues-namely, the incompetence and self-serving nature of current elites and institutions.
It sounds like they want to hide congressional investments and stock trades from their constituents, or at least this could be used in a way to achieve that.
Given that the Trump administration aligns itself with Russia and North Korea, the EU will need it. The US convinced Ukraine to scrap their nukes as they promised they would come to Ukraine's aid if needed. Trump is basically exploiting the situation to gain access to their natural resources. He's also telling them to let Russia keep the territory they stole when they Invaded Ukraine. Yes imagine that, Russia starting a war. Our country is so gaslit, our own citizens don't know right from wrong; fact from fiction. Protect your networks ppl. It's only going to get worse.
The complete collapse of the Republican party into one man's personality cult, any scintilla of principle be damned, is definitely not something I wouldn't have predicted 25 years ago.
Ukrainian nukes were about as Ukrainian as Texas-based US nukes are Texan — they were Soviet weapons targeting US cities, with launch authority and maintenance cycles controlled from Moscow.
After independence, Ukraine had physical possession of a huge nuclear arsenal but lacked the codes and infrastructure to operate or maintain it long-term. The only practical options were to dismantle them, bargain them away, or possibly sell off some nuclear material or technology to third parties — though they ultimately chose to denuclearize under the Budapest Memorandum in exchange for security assurances.
What could have truly deterred Russia was Ukraine’s enormous conventional military inherited from the USSR (actually, the size of Russia's), but it was steadily gutted over the decades through underfunding, corruption, and arms sales.
The only obligations it imposes, besides not attacking Ukraine, is to seek UN Security Council action should Ukraine be nuked. I don't know why people keep trotting it out like it's a comprehensive defense pact.
To be fair Ukraine didn't really have nukes. I mean they technically had nukes in their territory and maybe could have kept them if they really wanted to but it's a bit like e.g. Scotland trying to keep British nukes after declaring independence. Wouldn't make a lot sense.
Economically Ukraine was in a horrible state. Nuclear weapons have extremely high cost and I'm not sure if they even had any delivery vehicles? Also the the political repercussions, trade relations with Russia were very important etc.
Last but not least Russia and Ukraine were certainly not adversaries back in those days. After all Ukraine was on Russia's side when they attacked Moldova to establish Tranistria. Them going to war back in the 90s would have been almost as absurd as US invading Canada...
You forget that development and nuclear power knowledge comes from Ukraine, so they had nukes and were direct involved on it's creation if wasn't created by them
You forget that Britain and Canada also directly participated in the Manhattan project. Then they were locked out by Truman in 1945 and it took them another 7 years to develop their own nukes. It's just not that simple or straightforward.
Ukraine might have been in much better spot in some ways (they actually had functioning nukes) but in other ways it was simply infeasible politically (Russia was closer to being an "ally" than and adversary back in those days) and obviously economically unjustifiable.
There wasn’t a treaty obligation. But there was a promise.
Similarly, there is no treaty obligation for America to respond to Russia nuking Paris with even harsh words. Just promises around the treaty obligation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force” [1].
Let there be no doubt: the United States is defaulting on its promises in Ukraine.
The Budapest Memorandum did not promise any defense.
> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
§ 4 only applies "if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used" [1].
Russia is violating § 2. But Trump, Musk and Vance, by directly negotiating with Putin in respect of Ukraine's borders, are failing "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" (§ 1).
This seems like a sideways trade and in the same spirit. Military defense guarantees, not on the table according to 4 presidents now, could become a possibility for that subset of land which does not require entry into a currently ongoing war. The prior tactic (mere 100's of billions of aid, plus some sanctions) has resulted in the same outcome via a stalemate anyway.
> Military defense guarantees, not on the table according to 4 presidents now, could become a possibility
If someone trades territory for a U.S. security guarantee--absent a U.S. base that would have to be bombed by anyone trying to take more of the country--they're an idiot.
4 is a bit ambigious if the nuclear part applies to the threat or to both.
Russia violates 2, but not US. Negotiating with Putin does not violate "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" because it's not enforced. Ultimately it is up to Ukraine if they want to accept the deal negotiated by Trump
> Negotiating with Putin does not violate "to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" because it's not enforced
America negotiating with Putin on the future borders of Ukraine absolutely disrespects its sovereignty (by not including them) and borders. The proper role, if we wanted to directly mediate, would have been making it clear to Kyiv that the resource roll was done while informing Russia that if they come to the negotiating table then sanctions relief will be on the table. Then step back.
Again, it doesn't because America is not deciding for Ukraine. America negotiates a deal with Russia, then sends the deal to Ukraine and it's up to them to take it or leave it. Just because you don't like how the negotiating is done does not mean that US is disrespecting Ukraine's sovereignty.
'to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind;'
The US is making any support contingent on a peace agreement that Ukraine doesn't want because it doesn't want to give up it's land.
> America negotiates a deal with Russia, then sends the deal to Ukraine and it's up to them to take it or leave it
Come on.
> because you don't like how the negotiating is done does not mean that US is disrespecting Ukraine's sovereignty
We're treating their borders as violable in the negotations. That violates the deal. The fact that many Americans have jumped the shark when it comes to honest dealing sort of underwrites why we're no longer a reliable partner--we don't even know when we're lying.
US does not force any of the deal onto Ukraine, thus not violating the deal. US has negotiated a deal and offered it to Ukraine, who, in their full right, have not signed on.
US is still a reliable partner - which is why many countries continue to be in partnership with it. Fact is, US had made no promise to protect Ukraine.
That challenges its borders! If I agree not to steal your stuff and you find me hiring someone to steal your stuff, and I start arguing around the technicalities of our agreement, I’m a dishonourable liar!
> US is still a reliable partner
Are you watching the markets? Are you seeing the trade barriers go up? Our export companies are crashing. Our allies are writing separate security agreements, agreements that not only duplicate our own but balance American power.
I swear to god modern America is half made up of Calvin Coolidges. I’m not quite with Thiel on revisiting universal suffrage. But obviously the law of large numbers isn’t working when so correlated by social media.
Technically the Budapest Memorandum was a "political agreement" between the governments of US/UK/Russia at the time. It wasn't an actual treaty like NATO that was ratified by congress. Of course you do have a point about the "such action as it deems necessary" part.
> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
Which they did. Please tell me which exact aspect of the Budapest Memorandum did US not follow through?
> ... In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia ... in exchange for economic compensation and assurances from Russia, the United States and United Kingdom to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders....
And yes there is this point but this is irrelevant. Ukraine played by the rules and got played. Nobody would have invaded Ukraine in 1994 if they had refused, especially given the state of the Russian army at this time
> While all these weapons were located on Ukrainian territory, they were not under Ukraine's control.[4]
> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
Which they did. Please tell me which exact aspect of the Budapest Memorandum did US not follow through?
> Protect your networks ppl. It's only going to get worse.
Most important piece here, don't despair, protect your people, build mutual aid communities with your neighbors and friends, there is no one coming to save us but ourselves.
The war has been going on for three years with no end in sight. What's the next move? What are your ideas to defeat Russia and take back the areas they've gained since 2014?
The US funded wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for 20 years with no idea what the next move was, no tangible end in sight, and stakes far lower. The so-called threat of weapons of mass destruction was enough to swiftly defeat Iraq's army, topple its government, and start an unprecedented manhunt for its leader.
Russia has invaded a neighboring country twice and spent the first two years of the war they started threatening nuclear weapons. They disregard all negotiated agreements and treaties, poison dissidents in countries the US is allied with, with impunity, engage in asymmetric warfare against Europe and the US, meddle in elections. The Russian government has nothing but contempt for a rules based world order.
Why, suddenly, is the US cowering back when the stakes are much higher and its direct involvement much lower?
Because this President campaigned on ending the long wars, which he opposed. I'm not sure where the confusion lies because Trump has been very clear about getting the US out of what he views as foreign entanglements.
I'm not passing judgement on it, just noting that what we're seeing is consistent with his campaign messaging.
> getting the US out of what he views as foreign entanglements
The point is our alliances are also foreign entanglements. These idiots didn’t think through that withdrawing from those means fewer weapons (and other) orders from America, more nukes pointed at America and less strategic depth between our adversaries and our shores.
The US hasn't withdrawn from any of its military alliances, and thus far has expressed no plans to do so.
I feel like this is where a lot of NATO commentary gets bogged down. There's a large group of people, conventionally referred to in US media as "the blob" (https://www.vox.com/22153765/joe-biden-foreign-policy-team-r...), who believe that the United States has an affirmative duty to engage in lots of global military interventions above and beyond the actual commitments it's made. I don't think they're lying - people seem to genuinely believe, for example, that the US is betraying NATO by cutting off support for Ukraine when most NATO members would prefer to expand support. But the North Atlantic Treaty simply does not contain a promise to align foreign policy in this way.
> people seem to genuinely believe, for example, that the US is betraying NATO by not supporting Ukraine
You’re correct in this being incorrect.
The informed concern is in Trump and Musk’s coziness towards Putin. That brings up questions around what, if anything, Trump would do if Putin annexed Latvia.
It does, and it would be wise for the US to take steps to defuse those questions. This is why US troops often (and have continued in the new administration) engage in various celebrations and joint drills with NATO allies; there was a detachment of US troops in an Estonian Independence Day parade late last month, which I'm quite confident will not be happening for Russia Day in June no matter how much US-Russia relations warm.
But reasonable questions about the strength of an alliance aren't the same at all as withdrawal from or betrayal of the alliance.
The NATO treaty doesn't imply in his wording any obligation for a military reaction to an invasion of a member of NATO. There's no penalty to just respond with a strongly worded letter, but there's an expectation an ally will react militarly.
Will your allies trust you any longer if you just follow the letter of the treaty? I don't think they will. More critically, nor will anyone else.
The US have historically positioned themselves as "defenders of democracy" and have multiple times used that positioning actively. It's inevitable for an expectation to be there for them to do just that. The US is free to violate expectations and just follow the letter of the treaties it has, it is a sovereign nation after all, but the surprised and frankly childish "we have no obligation!" reaction to the blowback is more unreasonable than the expectations for its support of Ukraine, particularly in how it has been handled politically.
One of the US's most recent foreign deployments is the Iraq War, which was based on a lie and extraordinarily unpopular among NATO members. I think abandoning Ukraine is very bad, and I agree it's unreasonable to expect Europe to be OK with it, but the US's current position in NATO was never based on a foundation of good behavior or uniform foreign policy alignment.
There was effectively uniform foreign policy between the US and its allies for the last thirty years, even under the first Trump presidency, and this included at least a certain degree of interventionism (first Iraq war, Yugoslavia...) which solidified international institutions (differently from the second Iraq war and Afghanistan, which weakened them).
Even if they didn't agree, EU nations and Canada at least sent their soldiers to die in Iraq and Afghanistan anyway.
Why are you surprised people expect such policy alignment after thirty years of it?
Why are you surprised people consider this a betrayal of what NATO stood for in the past, as a proxy of the democracies of the west? Just because there is no violation of the letter of the treaty?
I'm not sure why you keep saying "surprised". I'm not surprised. But it's not the case that EU nations and Canada sent their soldiers to die in Iraq; France in particular sided with Russia to block the Security Council from authorizing military action, leading to substantial tensions with the US and widespread disapproval from the public on both sides. European demonstrations against the war remain one of the largest mass movements in history.
I don't think it was surprising that the Iraq War led to anti-American sentiment, I don't think it's surprising that the current about-face on Ukraine is leading to anti-American sentiment, and I won't be surprised when it happens again in the 2040s.
> But it's not the case that EU nations and Canada sent their soldiers to die in Iraq
They did, not all of them but many did. On Canada I may be wrong, sure. I believe even Ukraine has KIAs in Iraq.
> France in particular sided with Russia to block the Security Council from authorizing military action, leading to substantial tensions with the US and widespread disapproval from the public on both sides. European demonstrations against the war remain one of the largest mass movements in history.
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars broke the model the US and EU had been trying to push until that moment, alienating the south of the world from it and providing certain countries with a justification for their future actions. France had the right of it in the UN assembly.
People were angry back then for similar reasons they're angry and shocked now, and once again it has to do with expectations.
I also don't believe the Iraq war alone is not really enough to deny the alignment between EU and US foreign policy in the last 30 years or so anyway. You won't have complete agreement with 30 nations involved ever.
> But the North Atlantic Treaty simply does not contain a promise to align foreign policy in this way.
I think this in your original comment highlights your surprise at what those people believe, or at least your not understanding it?
Yeah, agree that's what is happening. My original question wasn't rhetorical in nature. I would really like to know what would secure victory without escalating it to involve American troops on the ground and/or potentially a nuclear exchange.
I would as well. It's unclear to me what would change the picture there. Do they just need more of the same (155mm artillery shells, drones, tanks, etc.) or are there qualitative things that need to change?
This speaks to the fact that I haven't seen any clear "this is how we win it" proposals. I could understand why the details would be classified, but I've not seen broad strokes, either. Has anyone else?
I don't need a lecture on Russia's character. What I was curious to learn from you, or anyone, what could be done differently to defeat them? How would Russia respond if we send more advanced weaponry? Does Ukraine have the men to fight?
I'm getting downvoted but honestly looking for answers.
You can’t fully defeat a nuclear power. You can, at best, drive it back — if you’re willing to pay the price.
And that price means Europe will have to absorb a dramatic, sustained drop in quality of life — plus forced mobilisation.
Even the Poles - the most serious player in Europe right now — only have about 200,000 troops.
The British and French combined have maybe 40,000 soldiers actually capable of high-intensity combat. That’s enough for, what - four weeks of real war?
After that, there will be no volunteers. That means a draft.
So the real question is: Are you ready to be drafted to “defeat Russia”?
It’s a war of attrition now, which is a war of will and logistics. Can anything be done differently? I don’t know, but I don’t think so. Isn’t victory under these circumstances making the war so costly that your opponent must find a way out?
The US was doing that. Russia’s will has won out over the US’s, that is a defeat, and we can only hope next time it isn’t the same.
War of attrition. I thought we'd be further along after three years of sanctions and weapons but I wonder if Ukraine has the manpower to keep it up. From what I understand, Ukraine is drafting men ages 25-60 which may signal they need boots on the ground soon.
Ukraine probably does not. Is Russia willing to risk the possibility of US/EU troops ending up on the other side of the trenches? Probably we’ll never know now, and maybe that’s better. But is it better that Russia knows maybe three years and the US might call it quits?
My country, Norway, shares a border with Russia. We have 5.5 million people. Would the US abandon us because we’re running out of troops? That’s the question we’re asking ourselves.
The realistic answer is to say that Ukraine is going to be supplied with weapons for as long as needed, case closed. The whole Russian strategy after the initial blitz failure was to wait for Trump to get into power, who telegraphed to anyone with the brain, that he doesn't care about Ukraine and loves Putin very much. Russia can't do it forever, but it focused on appearing "strong" until the elections, the bet that paid off for them. Now imagine they were facing a prospect of non-friendly US administrations for decades, they would've already stopped.
Except Putin doesn’t need to outrun America — he just needs to outrun Ukraine.
There’s a finite number of Ukrainians, and an even smaller number of Ukrainian men actually willing — or physically able — to fight.
20% of the population already left, and around 1.5 million of them went to Russia. Another 15% are stuck under occupation.
Ukraine’s demographics were already a disaster after the WW2 wipe-out, the Soviet collapse, and 30 years of economic decline and emigration. Now they’re drafting 18 to 60-year-olds just to keep units filled - at 40%.
So what happens in a year or two, when there’s no one left to draft?
The Poles aren’t volunteering to die en masse, and they’re the only EU country with anything resembling a real army — and even that is one-fifth the size of Russia’s.
So who’s holding the line then?
The US Army? The Marine Corps?
Is anyone actually ready to send Americans to die in the Donbas?
Russian economy doesn't have enough juice to "outrun Ukraine" under the sanctions regime and the war intensity they maintain to impress the Westerners. It's not a "year or two", it's a decade at least.
Keep Ukraine on life support for a decade, hoping Russia collapses under sanctions?
Cuba’s still standing after 60 years. Iran after 40. The USSR took decades to fall — and none of them had China bankrolling their survival.
Russia’s economy bleeds, but it’s not cut off. China sends tech and machines, India buys the oil, and Europe keeps quietly paying top dollar for gas through backdoors.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s population shrinks, its economy is wrecked, and its army can’t fight without Western money, Western weapons — and soon, Western bodies.
Because if you actually want to push Russia back — not even collapse it, just push it back — that means European and American troops on the front line. Conscription, mobilized economies, the whole package.
Without a sustained meat grinder to chew up Russian forces, Russia just consolidates and digs in — with China keeping the whole thing afloat.
And if the West isn’t ready for that, who exactly do you think will still be standing in 10 years?
The only guaranteed winner? China — with Russia as a client state, Europe as a deindustrialized theme park, and America too exhausted to stop them.
If this is a game of who bleeds out last, Ukraine’s already done, Europe bleeds out first, Russia bleeds to its usual stupid level — and China walks away without a scratch.
The Westerners have been tirelessly making excuses about how it's impossible to defeat Russia for a while now, so forgive me for not being impressed, but the proposition is quite simple really — if you don't want to support Ukrainians fighting for themselves against Russia today, Ukrainians will be sent to fight poles and others for Russia tomorrow. Of course as it's clear now, the US wouldn't defend Poland either, fighting Canada is the new geopolitical priority, so there's that.
Agree that China is a winner of it all simply by virtue of not being mad, but as they like to say in Russia — it's not the evening yet.
Funnily enough, this is exactly Putin’s own logic — just flipped.
“We had to support those rebel Ukrainian states so Ukrainians fight them, not us.”
“We had to preemptively disarm Ukraine, or we’d be fighting Ukrainians inside Russia within five years.”
As for China — surely they’d be nervous if Taiwan was one-third of their population and shared a land border.
Ukraine isn’t just a border state, it’s alt-Russia, as Taiwan is alt-China (and so was Hong-Kong). A competing civilizational project trying to jump off the imperial train and build a Polish-style normal nation-state — and that makes it an existential threat. Not because Ukraine is strong, but because it offers Russians a dangerous glimpse of an alternative path — a Russian identity without the empire.
> Funnily enough, this is exactly Putin’s own logic — just flipped
Except Ukrainians ask the West for support to fight for themselves, so the West is given a rarest opportunity to do a morally right thing while furthering its own interests.
French land army is 77k total, with maybe 30k actually combat-capable — the rest are admin, logistics, and training. Add 9k Foreign Legion, but only a fraction of that is high-intensity capable.
With rotations, France can probably field about 15k troops on an actual frontline — and after that, it’s draft time.
For comparison:
* Russian armed forces: 1.1 million.
* 500k deployed in Ukraine.
* ~300k on the active frontline right now.
In terms of real land warfare capacity, France is in the same weight class as Belarus or Romania — and about 20 times behind Russia.
Even if you argue technical edge (better equipment per soldier), France has zero industrial mobilization capacity and no modern large-scale combat experience.
Ukraine needs to sustain significantly lower tempo than Russia and there are other options than boots on the ground. Simply flying in and shooting down slow-flying drones inside the Ukrainian airspace would probably give Ukrainian economy years of "runway". And any breathing room in the economy translates into more available manpower in the military and Ukraine still has millions available.
> I was curious to learn from you, or anyone, what could be done differently to defeat them
Russia doesn't have infinite capacity, their primary strategy was to take as much as possible at all costs as fast as possible, while waging info campaigns against the far right, in the hopes that Trump would come to power and cement a deal with them. If that option goes away, it strictly reduces Russias exit strategies. They can't escalate, because the west has more leverage and more options, it would be zero sum at _best_ for Russia. The West would likely hand them Crimea for peace, but giving them all of Donbas is too large a victory for Russia. The post WW2 orders foundational principle is that appeasement of land grabs leads to stronger positions for the grabber - see Hitler's numerous escalations before his full on attack as an example. Ideally you don't wait until the attacker is on your door step before fighting back, that's what this whole debacle is about.
Some of the options could have been:
- Continue on, but with aligned support from the left and right (read: Russian psyops campaign vs the US right failed). Probably enough on its own.
- Pressure China (tariffs) to pressure Russia
- Pressure Europe to increase commitments
- Offer Russia Crimea (already done ages ago, when their position was stronger)
- Setup an increasing schedule of more advanced weaponry
> How would Russia respond if we send more advanced weaponry?
AFAIK they haven't responded to the last several increases; what would they respond with? The Nuke is their last card, and in addition to pulling in more Western support would alienate the other players (India, China) who have their own leverage on Russia. IDK overall it seems like the only major limitation here was the psychology of Trump's party.
And what exactly is "The West" these days? A glorified open-air Continental museum, a failed British Empire with an army the size of Belarus, and a bickering hegemon half-convinced it should retreat to regional power status, house divided and all.
Europeans are still high on their own supply, fantasizing they’re global players, when in reality they’ve got no money, no energy, no industry, no credible army, no unity, and no diplomatic weight — not even within their own borders.
Europe spent decades as an American piggy bank and a strategic liability. Now the bill’s come due — and Uncle Vlad is doing Uncle Donald a favor, playing the bogeyman just well enough to scare Europe’s capital and industry back into the safe harbor of the New World.
And if Russian pressure helps deliver "MAGA in four years" by triggering capital flight from Europe to the US — is Ukraine really too steep a price for such a valuable service?
> the only major limitation here was the psychology of Trump's party.
The party that has 50/50 chance of winning the elections has been communicating to Putin all this entire time that they will hand him Ukraine when they win. Now they conclude that this strategy didn't help Ukraine and therefore it's time to hand Ukraine to Putin. Brilliant strategy, I wish them to enjoy their Russian friends who will definitely not screw them over very soon.
Help them win it. Like we did in two world wars in the 20th century. Here in the 21st century we get off easy and just provide material support, and intelligence; not blood. Hell of a deal to defend democracy.
Letting Russia keep the territories they control now is a great way to ensure that in few years when they rebuild their military potential they will attack again.
It also signals wars of conquest are back. That’s a message that will also be heard by revanchists in Beijing and New Delhi and expansionists in Tel Aviv, Riyadh and D.C.
Let the Ukrainians decide. The war could have been over if Biden and Musk hadn’t meddled in Kyiv’s strategy.
There is no peace with a Moscow that believes it can gain resources and mollify its population with wars of expansion. Pausing in Ukraine just allows for build-up for another wave. Maybe in Ukraine. Maybe elsewhere.
The war could have been over if Biden and Musk hadn’t meddled in Kyiv’s strategy.
This is the exact line of thinking that Hitler used to justify WW2. Surely we can all see this logic for the farce that it is. Ukraine never had a shot at winning this war and it’s only with massive international support that they’re able to maintain the fragile stalemate they now find themselves in.
> is the exact line of thinking that Hitler used to justify WW2
Hitler argued that he lost WWII because external powers were limiting the Nazis through diplomatic channels?! (Also, since when do we care about how Hitler justified things?)
> Ukraine never had a shot at winning this war
A significant amount of Russia’s naval and air assets were vulnerable to Ukrainian drone and missile fire in ‘22.
> it’s only with massive international support
You mean like the American Revolution, WWI for the Allies, WWII for the Allies and the Cold War for Europe?
> This is the exact line of thinking that Hitler used to justify WW2.
Hitlers literal claim was that Germany needs a living space, that Germans do not fit into German. Plus he claimed that the world is a war of races. Like, these were his literal justications.
The equivalent there would be Russian claims about Ukraine attacking them right before invasion. As of now, the Russian invasion itself is provably existing.
It is about zero paralel with "The war could have been over if Biden and Musk hadn’t meddled in Kyiv’s strategy."
With money and military/economic tensions for EU and US ? EU might have some interest in stabilizing the border and preventing future threats, but US literally has no interest there. And the only EU member that possibly had to worry about Russia is Finland, but they are in NATO now.
What motivation? russia is US sworn enemy, always was and always will be. Only fools don't take chance to make your enemy weaker, especially when its causing it to itself by their own stupidity and greed. US waged wars for less, far less.
I think from Trumps POV Russia is not that relevant and China is the rival. US has spats with Russia when they play globalist games, but Trump does not seem to be that interested in playing and Chinese are way stronger than Russia recently since they are growing their presence in Africa and SA.
Good thing US integritiy has no value anymore and US word is apparently worthless nowadays - otherwise I guess honoring the Budapest memorandum would make sense:
Did we (1) fail to respect their borders? (2) Threaten to use force, invade them or use those nukes against them? (3) Wage an economic war against them? (4) Fail to seek UN Security Council action in response to Ukraine being nuked? (5) Nuke them? (6) Refuse to talk to them about the agreement?
The thoughts are to NOT allow them to have time to rearm, get ready for another invasion, get another territory. And then again and again. That is all the peace right now would be - strategic pause so that Russia can get stronger for the next attack.
Also, Trump is supporting Russia while attacking Europe, Canada, Mexico, Greenland ... . Trump talks about annexing parts of Europe (Greenland) and annexing Canada.
Surrendering is not known to be a good negotiating position.
They were building into a good position with russia very depleted and economically on the ropes. Despite hold ups in US aid over the Biden admin. Pressing more aid and strengthening their position would be better for negotiating a peace. But quite simply Trump/Vance/Musk don’t want that.
If I remember correctly Trump promised to stop the war in 24 hours. The only way to do negotiate this fast is to totally diminish one side's position. When there no discussion, there is nothing to negotiate. The goal is not long standing peace, it is a plain populism and potential "peacemaker" title, and likely even a Nobel prize, if this wasn't derailed by Zelensky who refuses take words as a guarantee.
This whole thing started when they willingly disarmed in return for security assurances that didn't turn out to be worth the paper they were written on. It progressed when Obama failed to help them stop Putin in 2014, and now it's metastasized due to Biden's half-assed support and Trump's active antipathy.
That's exactly what I'm asking: what tools? The only thing I see is endless supply of money and ammo which means attrition. Russia will win in manpower but maybe not economically. I'm kindly asking to be educated with more than talking points we've all heard from politicians.
The most critical need is air defense: anti-air missiles and cannons capable of shooting down Russian missiles and drones. Long-range missiles are important too, because it is better to shoot the archer than to try take down every arrow. Long-range missiles can blow up the bombers that launch cruise missiles against Ukraine. This protects Ukrainian cities, factories, and military sites from further destruction.
Next, they need artillery to halt the slow advance of Russian ground forces. With the new unjammable wire-guided drones that were introduced early this year, Ukrainians have already successfully halted Russian advances in most sectors, but ample artillery support is even more effective. They need lots of artillery to blow up with a big bang everything that the Russians throw at them.
Finally, Ukraine must be equipped for counteroffensives. They need a large supply of planes, tanks, IFVs, and other vehicles to go from defense to attack and liberate occupied territories. Once Ukraine has the means to counterattack, it is up to them to decide how far they want to go before sitting down with the Russians to negotiate peace. Strong enough pushes by Ukraine may force the Russians to concede some areas without a fight, just as they previously withdrew from Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson, and Sumy.
The current approach has been a slow trickle of aid in a naive hope that Putin might back down. That strategy has clearly failed. Ukraine needs full support, everything we can provide. This is both the moral choice, and the cheapest option in terms of money and lives.
It is really important to stress that Ukrainians do not expect others to fight for them. They are only asking for material support: weapons, ammo, vehicles. The rest they can handle on their own.
With the current administration, the US will just do the same thing they did to Ukraine. They will abandon them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyJY_dq8_SM The Trump administration will take TSMC's technology and then leave them to fend for themselves. Just as they literally forced Ukraine to denuclearize and now they have no power to keep Russia in check. We promised to defend Ukraine, but now the Trump administration won't promise security when It was already promised. The same thing is going to happen to Taiwan as soon as the administration get's theirs. We can't trust the current administration to follow through with any of their promises.
We are more likely to get pulled into a war with Russia and North Korea on the wrong side against Ukraine and the EU. Taiwan is a minor concern to what's taking place in our government right now. The very mere fact that Trump is siding and supporting Russian narratives, offering "gold cards" to Russian Ochlarchies, firing and gutting departments and agencies, including overwatch, should terrify everybody.
Trump is just flooding the zone with shit as he continues to break apart all checks and balances while keeping everybody distracted.
I think people are conflating way too many issues here with politics vs actual threats. China and Russia are not our allies. The CCP and Kremlin do not have our best interests in mind or even our most basic needs. They want to be global super powers and spread dictatorships. Democracy is a threat to absolute power. For years, the CCP and Kremlin authorities have been spreading disinformation to polarize politics in our country. TikTok, Twitter (X), Facebook, and Truth social have been abused and leveraged to manipulate many into thinking conspiracies are all real. This also includes media outlets and corporations that allow foreign Chinese (CCP) and oligarch investors. The difference with TikTok is that its owned by the CCP and they are very intent on getting everybody to dislike our government and splinter our democracy. While TikTok is mostly garbage, I think there are many that leverage the platform for income and have been quite successful off it. I still think it should be moderated in a way that doesn't turn citizens against each other and their own government. The only way to do this is to ban or sell the corporation. I'd also add disallowing foreign investors that are not Allies to the US.
What Does Free Speech Mean? https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re...
TikTok isn't violating any US laws. If the US outlawed 'spreading disinformation to polarize politics' they'd have to ban youtube/facebook/twitter/reddit too. Do you think we should block all websites in China and Russia? Should we block their IP space entirely? We used to say that censoring the internet was something that only happened in Evil countries like China. We'd poke fun at their Great Firewall, but to preserve our own hypocrisy the US has decided to join in on the internet censorship game. Now congress is telling you what software you're allowed to install on your own hardware.
I think it's better to have freedom. As an American I should be able to view any media from any country I like as long as that media doesn't violate US law. Americans should have the freedom to use any software written in any country they like. In this case, we lost freedom to censorship and Democracy did nothing to stop it.
Yes, a law was just created specifically so that tiktok could be in violation of it. Before today the platform wasn't in violation of any law and there is still nothing unique about what they've been doing compared to US owned platforms, and while their existence as a non-US owned platform has been made illegal TikTok itself wasn't doing anything illegal as a Chinese owned platform.
This exactly. We are basically giving them the keys to our culture. Especially since half the US was successfully convinced to write off their own freedom of press, which is one of the most fucking ridiculous things about it. We have the resources and freedom of our own press, guaranteed by the First Amendment. And ppl are bitching and moaning about a half-baked snapchat knockoff, with endless meme scroll animation. Half the US doesn't even realize they are using a CCP mandated and owned media outlet to rely on algorithmic digital chaos, which serves themselves to an echo of the past, and mistake it for future. We are literally watching another country manipulate policy in the house and senate live. There's no mistaking about it; we are being fucked with deliberately. Again, this isn't easy to see because it's been escalating gradually the past decade. However, if you follow the court cases, and occasionally listen to ongoing judicial and intelligence congressional hearings, they bring this up constantly. Make no mistake, American social media corps also need to be held accountable too. Americans have the right to assemble, even online. However, I don't think we should be letting Russia or China choose the platform. Again, we should only allow foreign investment from allied nations. THis shit with oligarchies and CCP controlled affiliates owning and getting on boards of disney, lucid, tesla, activation (blizzard), reddit, etc is just as fucked up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tencent
Foreigners weren't breaking our laws in 1934 when we banned them from owning radio and TV stations. Are you all really that poorly educated in US history? Have schools really deteriorated that much in the 35 years I've been away from them that kids don't know we have laws governing mass media in this country?
When TikTok urged kids to phone Congress last month, apparently a number of them asked questions like "what's Congress?". I'm going to say yes, our schools have really deteriorated that much.
Peter Theil, JD Vance, Marc Andreesen, Garry Tan, Srinivasan, and many others, wanting to overthrow democracy and dissolve nation states. This effort is to establish Network States with those that worship them, sycophants and cults. They want to transform the US into an Autocracy. The polarization of the media and political parties is on purpose. They want America to fall. It's not a secret, not a conspiracy theory. It's definitely being rolled out by billionaires. It would be wise for others here to really do your research and understand why we are being polarized to hate each other. Enter the butterfly revolution:
1. Reboot (“full-power start”) Suspend or bypass existing constitutional limits; concentrate absolute sovereignty in one new organization—analogous to Allied occupation powers in post-1945 Japan/Germany. Eliminate checks and balances that block rapid change.
2. CEO-Monarch model A single executive (chosen like a corporate CEO) rules; the former president becomes a figurehead “chairman of the board.” Treat the state as a firm run for efficiency, not democratic representation.
3. RAGE strategy “Retire All Government Employees” by mass-firing the civil service and replacing it with loyal appointees. Remove institutional resistance (“the Cathedral”) and ensure obedience.
4. Parallel regime Build a fully staffed shadow government in exile before inauguration; unveil it on Day 1 to take over agencies at once. Prevent the bureaucratic slow-rolling that stymied Trump’s first term.
5. Media & academia clampdown Defund or shutter universities and independent press seen as hostile. Break what Yarvin calls the Cathedral’s cultural dominance.
Resources:
"The Straussian Moment", https://www.hoover.org/research/peter-thiel-straussian-momen...
Freedom Cities in Trumps presser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJA_GBhCGgE
Billionaire example: https://www.praxisnation.com
Apocalypse Now? Peter Thiel on Ancient Prophecies and Modern Tec, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqHueZNEzig
A.I., Mars and Immortality: Are We Dreaming Big Enough? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV7YgnPUxcU&t=404s
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/magazine/curtis-yarvin-in...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/11/patchwork-p...