#Ukraine india russia war news

[affairsmastery]

Tensions flared as U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy clashed in a heated Oval Office meeting. Zelenskiy urged caution with Russia, while Trump accused him of being ungrateful, warning, "You are gambling with World War Three."

Despite the friction, both leaders were set to sign a deal granting U.S. access to Ukraine's mineral industry—though it lacked explicit security guarantees. Zelenskiy demanded "no compromises with a killer," while Trump maintained that Putin was open to a deal. "I hope I'm going to be remembered as a peacemaker," Trump remarked, pushing for an end to the war.

[the-eyespy]

🌏🌍🌎 You know when you have the USA, NATO, Russia, and China united against you, you're cooked.

Is there any conflict or potential brewing conflict where you can potentially see the United States, Russia, and China cooperating?

[munaeem]

Understanding Putin's Strategy: A New World Order

What Happened and Why Putin Did It So, picture Ukraine minding its own business when Russia rolls in with tanks and missiles. Putin called it a “special military operation” (yeah, he still does), not a war. His goals? He wanted Ukraine to ditch any “Nazi” vibes (his words, not mine), drop its military power, and stay neutral—no cozying up to NATO, the Western military club. He was like, “I’ve…

[head-post]

Critical media analysis of Ukraine’s actions in Kursk region

As the Kursk invasion drags on, global media are reporting that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s decision to enter Russian territory seems to be a risky gamble that not only drains vital resources but also weakens defences in the Donbas.

The loud incursion of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) into Russia’s Kursk Region began on 6 August. Since then, numerous media outlets have focused on a critical assessment of the situation. While at first the rapid offensive by Ukrainian troops looked like a breath of fresh air in a protracted war, today the AFU’s actions are systematically turning into yet another page of a history that has fatigued all participants in the armed conflict.

Incursion goals

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky claimed on Sunday that the military incursion into the Kursk region was allegedly aimed at creating a buffer zone to prevent further attacks by Moscow across the border, according to ABC News.

However, Zelensky earlier said the operation was meant to protect settlements in the border Sumy region from shelling.

It is now our primary task in defensive operations overall: to destroy as much Russian war potential as possible and conduct maximum counteroffensive actions. This includes creating a buffer zone on the aggressor’s territory – our operation in the Kursk region.

Nuclear threat

On Friday, 23 August, Russia accused Ukraine of attempting to attack the Kursk nuclear power plant (KNPP) at night, calling it an act of “nuclear terrorism,” Reuters reported. This came days before the head of the IAEA, the UN atomic watchdog, Rafael Mariano Grossi, is due to visit the site.

The NPP is located in the Kursk region. Russia’s defence ministry reported in a statement that its air defence shot down three Ukrainian drones overnight in the Kursk region. According to Russian media, one drone was hit near a storage facility for spent nuclear fuel.

Grossi urged the warring parties to exercise maximum restraint to avoid a nuclear accident. Heavy fighting has been taking place 30 kilometres (18 miles) from the nuclear plant since the incursion started on 6 August, as Russian troops battle to dislodge Ukrainian soldiers.

Third party response

Meanwhile, the United States announced that it would send about $125 million in new military aid to Ukraine amid the incursion into the Kursk region. The aid package from President Joe Biden’s administration will include air defence missiles, Himars artillery, ammunition and Javelin, as well as counter-drone equipment, according to The Telegraph.

The aid, which will be drawn from Pentagon stockpiles for faster delivery, is also expected to include anti-tank missiles, electronic warfare systems, vehicles, and 155mm and 105mm artillery ammunition.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met with Zelensky on Friday. Officials from the two countries claim the visit is aimed at strengthening economic ties and cooperation in defence, science, and technology.

However, analysts suggest that with such a move, India is keen to show it is taking a more neutral stance after New Delhi has been accused of supporting Moscow. Earlier, Zelensky criticised Modi for hugging Putin during a visit to Moscow.

Gains and losses

On Thursday, Russia and Ukraine reported new successes on the battlefield, Reuters informed. Kyiv welcomed the capture of another minor village, but at the same time hundreds of Ukrainians fled the eastern city of Pokrovsk.

Visiting the border area on 6 August, Zelensky announced the seizure of a new village, which he did not name, and said the incursion had helped reduce Russian shelling of the northeastern Sumy region. On his return to Kyiv, the Ukrainian president also stated that the latest actions by the Ukrainian military were part of an effort to end the war on Kyiv’s terms, not Moscow’s.

This is all our systematic defence path, the path to end this war on the terms of an independent Ukraine.

Meanwhile, over the past few months, Russian forces have continued a gradual offensive against fatigued Ukrainian troops in the Donbas (Luhansk and Donetsk regions), eastern Ukraine. The Russian Defence Ministry announced taking the village of Mezhove and repelled an attempt by Ukrainian troops to infiltrate across the border in another region.

Ukrainian authorities claim that Russian troops are now only 10 kilometres from Pokrovsk, an essential transport hub in eastern Ukraine. Control over Pokrovsk will allow Russia to advance in new directions and cut off supply routes used by the Ukrainian military in the Donetsk region.

Children with their parents or other legal guardians will be forcibly evacuated from some areas, including Pokrovsk, according to a statement by the Ukrainian ministry responsible for reintegrating regions formerly under Russian control.

Overall, the intensity of hostilities has slowed in the Kursk region and intensified in the Donbas. The much-promised incursion by the AFU has utilised scarce manpower and equipment, with a sudden breakthrough turning into a risky gamble.

Media outlets report that Zelensky has staked on the incursion. That means that unless Ukraine demonstrates considerable success, it risks not only retreating from a weakened Donbas, but also losing key military equipment essential for both defence and offensive operations.

Read more HERE

[rightnewshindi]

रूस की पोलैंड पर हमले की आशंका के बीच जो बाइडेन से मिले राष्ट्रपति डूडा, जानें अमेरिका ने क्या कहा

रूस की पोलैंड पर हमले की आशंका के बीच जो बाइडेन से मिले राष्ट्रपति डूडा, जानें अमेरिका ने क्या कहा

Washington News: रुस-यूक्रेन युद्ध के बीच पोलैंड के राष्ट्रपति और प्रधानमंत्री के संयुक्त अमेरिका दौरे ने दुनिया का ध्यान आकर्षित किया है. पॉलिश राष्ट्रपति ने यहां यूरोप के भविष्य पर बड़ी चिंता जताई. उन्होंने कहा कि अगर पुतिन यूक्रेन जीत गए तो वो अपने युद्ध का दायरा बढ़ा सकते हैं. राष्ट्रपति आंद्रेज डूडा ने पोलैंड और अन्य देशों पर संभावित रुसी अक्रमण को लेकर चिंता जताई, जिस पर हिटलर के हमले ने…

[newzquest]

CBI Cracks Down on Human Trafficking Network Sending Indians to Russia

In a shocking revelation, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has uncovered a sinister human trafficking network that has been exploiting the aspirations of Indians, leading them into the perilous conflict zone of the Russia-Ukraine war. Citing officials, news agencies have reported that the investigating agency has launched a massive search operation across seven cities to dismantle this…

[sportswearworldwide]

Russian soldiers stealing commodes in Ukraine

Ukraine-Russia War: Ukraine’s First Deputy Foreign Minister Emin Japarova made a shocking disclosure on Tuesday about Russian soldiers in Delhi. Emin Japarova criticized Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. Also claimed that when some conversations of Russian soldiers with their wives and mothers were intercepted, it was found that they were about stealing houses in Ukraine. During the theft,…

[shaktiknowledgeblog]

Russia Ukraine war | Russia India Friendship | Russia Ukraine news | russia | india | Putin | Modi | pm modi | Vladimir Putin

Those who question the friendship of India and Russia will get a shock, Putin himself will answer, Russian Foreign Ministry revealed In the past, Chinese President Xi Jinping traveled to Russia। Even after this, it was said that Russia should not go against India in the pretext of China। But the friendship with India was always given away from Russia. Image Source: FILEThose who question the…

[affairsmastery]

North Korean troops reportedly killed 300 Ukrainian soldiers and reclaimed the village of Plyokhovo in the Kursk region within two hours on December 6. The attack, described as a “hurricane” by the Russian Telegram channel Romanov Light, left no survivors as the forces took no prisoners. Ukraine's Defense Ministry has not commented, but pro-Russian politician Oleg Tsaryov confirmed the news without providing further details.

This comes amid deepening ties between Russia and North Korea, marked by a defense pact signed in June and formalized this week after an exchange of ratification documents. North Korea has reportedly sent over 10,000 soldiers to Russia, according to accusations by the United States and South Korea.

The presence of North Korean forces in Russia, first reported by Washington, has intensified concerns among global leaders. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has called for their withdrawal, fearing an escalation in the conflict. Additionally, Pyongyang’s support has included supplying artillery shells and military aid, further solidifying the military partnership with Moscow. The move highlights North Korea’s growing involvement in the Ukraine war and its strengthening defiance of international sanctions.

[ltwilliammowett]

Today on the second advent and door no. 8 we have a lovely pair, La Grace and Shtandart

More about them here:

La Grace is a replica of a historic tall ship from the 18th century that will sail the seven seas like the original ship 300 years ago. The aim of the project is to give anyone interested the opportunity to sail a historic ship as part of the Navy's training programme and to share the proud traditions of sailing.

The brig was built between 2008 and 2010 by a group of volunteers from the Czech Republic and Slovakia in an Egyptian shipyard in Suez using traditional craft techniques. The brig was designed by its owners (Josef Dvorsky and Daniel Rosecky) according to technical drawings published in 1768 in the Architectura navalis mercatoria by the Swedish admiral Fredrik Henrik af Chapman.

According to available sources, the original La Grace was a ship owned by the first Czech naval captain Augustin Herrman, a famous navigator in Czech history. He sailed across the Atlantic in the service of the Dutch West India Company. After leaving the company, he commanded the small privateer ship La Grace. This relatively weak and vulnerable ship with six cannons brought large quantities of captured Spanish galleons to New Amsterdam every year.

The Shtandart is a replica of an 18th century frigate. The original was the first frigate built at the Olonez shipyard under Peter the Great and the first ship to be commissioned as a frigate for the Baltic Fleet. During the Great Northern War, Tsar Peter succeeded in conquering the area that would later become St Petersburg on the Neva. With the conquest of the fortress of Nöteborg in 1702, Lake Ladoga was removed from Swedish control and the Tsar hoped to gain access to Finland. The aim of these endeavours was to gain access to the Baltic Sea in order to establish a port city there for trade and naval purposes.

The frigate was built from 1702 at the Olonez shipyard on the Lodejner Feld on the River Swir near Lake Ladoga, where it was given its name in reference to the newly introduced Russian naval flag, a standard. Tsar Peter personally transferred the ship to the Baltic Sea in 1703. When seven Swedish ships of the line, five frigates and other small ships attacked the mouth of the Neva in June 1705, eight Russian frigates, presumably including the Schandart, lay behind a barrage of trees. In 1712 and 1713, she took part in troop landings in Swedish Finland near Vyborg. No further use is mentioned after this action. The ship was decommissioned as unserviceable in 1718. In 1723, the ship was scrapped in St. Petersburg.

According to another version, Tsar Peter had ordered the Schandart to be preserved as a reminder of the beginnings of the Russian fleet. Tsarina Catherine I ordered the condition of the Petrine ships to be examined in 1727. However, the Shtandart broke up while trying to take her out of the water.

As a result of the sanctions against Russia following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russian ships are denied access to European ports. However, following a request from the Président des Amis des Grands Voiliers association to the French Secretary of State, the Shtandart was granted permission to call at French and Spanish ports and has remained there ever since. There are plans to put her under the French flag, as her captain strongly distances themselves from Russia.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

For Lula, Milei Has Gone From Being a Nuisance to Being a Problem

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has aspirations for regional and global leadership. Standing in Lula’s way is the fact that he cannot even get a meeting with his counterpart from neighboring Argentina, President Javier Milei.

Seven months after Milei’s inauguration, the two leaders have met only once and even then briefly, on the sidelines of the G7 meeting last month in Italy. Otherwise, they have unartfully dodged each other as they have darted around the region and the world promoting their opposing ideological views.

Lula’s global agenda is expansive. He wants Brazil to have a permanent United Nations Security Council seat. He plans for the country to take a leading role in climate change negotiations as he hosts the U.N. COP30 Climate Change Conference in Brazil next year. He has tried to insert himself as a mediator in the Ukraine conflict. And when BRICS—the political grouping that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa—moved to expand last year, Lula made sure to bring along Argentina under then-President Alberto Fernandez as one of its new members.

Milei withdrew Argentina from the BRICS expansion process as soon as he took office in December. That’s consistent with his desire to move the country away from China and closer to the United States. Besides that, he has not clearly outlined an international agenda for his country. But Milei definitely has an international agenda for himself. He has portrayed himself as an ally of Israel and Ukraine, a contrast to Latin America’s left-wing leaders who have opposed the former’s war in Gaza and mainly attempted to remain neutral on the latter’s fight against Russian aggression.

Ideologically, Milei is attempting to turn himself into a global icon for free market libertarianism, speaking at conferences in South America, the U.S. and Europe, and meeting with venture capital investors and social media stars. He uses strong rhetoric in favor of capitalism and against any form of what he views as socialism or Marxism. His relatively extreme views, which only appeal to a small minority of Argentine voters who comprise his base, get him wild cheers overseas.

Continue reading.

[mariacallous]

In Ukraine’s prolonged struggle against Russia, the election of Donald Trump as the next U.S. president was a black swan event.

Among other positions, Trump ran on the promise of extricating the United States from the conflict in Ukraine. His closest allies have openly disparaged Kyiv and made overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Thus, with this transition of power begins a new chapter of the war in which Western support for Ukraine could fall by the wayside.

Outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden’s belated decision to allow Ukraine to use U.S. missiles to strike targets deep within Russian territory, a critical condition of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s “victory plan,” is hardly a godsend. These missiles cannot singlehandedly change the course of the war, and they put Zelensky in an awkward position. Striking Russian targets will trigger not only the wrath of Putin, but also that of Trump, who will undoubtedly view any escalation as a shot against his own prospects for dealmaking.

With Trump making threats to pull out of NATO and cut a deal with Putin, Europe is also having second thoughts on backing Ukraine. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke with Putin on Nov. 15 about bringing an end to the war, while Czech President Petr Pavel announced plans in October to send a new ambassador to the Czech Embassy in Moscow in early 2025.

Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres recently attended the annual summit of the BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and several recently added members—hosted in Kazan, Russia. The U.N.’s involvement in an event hosted by a country engaged in a war of aggression, whose president is wanted under an International Criminal Court warrant, sends a disheartening message.

Almost three years into Russia’s full-scale invasion, the West is tired. It no longer has the political will to help Ukraine win by military means and is seeking a settlement with the aggressor instead.

The U.S. shift toward isolationism may hasten the inevitable: Ukraine and the West will soon find themselves negotiating with Russia to define the terms of a settlement—and, by extension, shaping a new world order. This emerging order will not be the rules-based system established after World War II, but one driven by idiosyncratic dealmaking among strongmen.

The problem is that any deal will amount to Ukraine’s—and the West’s—capitulation to Russia.

A bad peace is better than a good quarrel, according to a Russian proverb. If the West is set on securing this “bad peace,” then it must have a negotiating strategy along four critical parameters: territories, security guarantees for Ukraine, reparations, and sanctions.

Even before Trump’s election, some of Ukraine’s staunchest allies began expressing the view that Ukraine would have to accept some loss of land. The most obvious settlement strategy, then, would likely involve buying Ukrainian and European security with territory—possibly including Donetsk; large chunks of the Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions; and the peninsula of Crimea, which Russia first seized in 2014.

This outcome is a far cry from the Western leaders’ earlier commitments to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and hopes for regime change in Russia, but realpolitik leaves little room for moral considerations.

Should Zelensky agree to this loss of territory, the only realistic security guarantee for Ukraine would be membership in NATO. Yet this runs counter to what U.S. Vice President-elect J.D. Vance has lobbied for: a demilitarized zone along the current front lines and an enduring commitment to Ukraine’s neutrality.

The next White House does not seem to have a plan for what happens to Europe in a few years, when it would face a revanchist Russia with a subdued Ukraine at its Western borders. Such an outcome is not in Trump’s best interest. Another option, therefore, may have Trump concede to Ukraine’s membership in a new NATO—one without the United States, perhaps—leaving Europeans to be the masters of their own security.

Battered and curtailed but still sovereign, Ukraine would gain a nuclear umbrella against future Russian aggression, and Europe would fund the postwar reconstruction. There would be no international tribunal and no reparations. (Putin won’t be negotiating his own sentence.) Sanctions against Russia would remain for the time being. Europe would accept the occupation de facto, but it wouldn’t de jure recognize the territory as Russian land.

It will be difficult to come up with a deal that satisfies all parties. But in any negotiation, reaching a mutually satisfactory outcome depends on the motivation and constraints of those involved. The West is motivated to settle in Ukraine because it is tired of war, and because Trump is uninterested in leading the existential fight for democracy. Ukraine, understanding that it cannot win on its own, can be motivated to settle in order to stop the now-pointless bloodshed.

Putin’s motivations are murkier. In fact, a closer look would reveal that Putin has no need for lasting peace.

Putin’s megalomaniacal intransigence is now reinforced by his perception that he is winning, even if it is taking longer than he hoped. Piecemeal shipments of Western military aid have made Russian advances slow and painful—but they have been advances nevertheless. While Ukraine’s ability to affect Russian military logistics was until recently severely hampered by Western restrictions, the Russian army has faced no such limitations, regularly bombing civilian infrastructure and military targets alike.

In wars of attrition, the side with more resources is poised to win, and Russia still mobilizes resources with frightening force. Russia has activated the economic and cultural mechanisms necessary for around-the-clock military production—bread-making factories churning out drones, schoolchildren making camouflage nets, and old Soviet tanks hauled out of Siberian forests and shipped to Ukrainian front lines.

Now that the economy has been switched on to military footing, there is no shortage of munitions. Meanwhile, government payouts ensure an ample supply of volunteers to enlist in the military, meaning Russia does not have a manpower crisis like Ukraine does.

No human toll is too high for Russia. During World War II, Russia lost more than 27 million people—the largest number of fatalities of all involved. Peter the Great’s 18th-century Great Northern War, which established Russia’s power in the Baltics, lasted 21 years and incurred enormous casualties, as did the 25-year-long Livonian War fought by Ivan the Terrible in the 16th century.

Russia has already suffered upward of 700,000 people dead or wounded during the Ukraine war, according to estimates from the National Interest. But with families of dead soldiers mollified by the “coffin money” they receive, society writ large has not budged in its support for the war. It will likely stay that way short of another mobilization.

It certainly helps that the brunt of the war is borne by recruited volunteers, who sign up to fight to improve their and their family’s economic standings, and by convicts—both groups making up a significant number of those killed and wounded in Ukraine. Another large constituency fighting Russia’s war is national minorities, often from depressed economic areas and the lowest strata of society. And now, those minorities are joined by North Korean soldiers and potentially by citizens of the other dictatorships that Putin courts.

Contrast this low visibility of Russia’s war toll, further obscured by Kremlin propaganda, to its loudly celebrated nativist successes. In the last two years, not only did Russia fail to fold under the weight of Western sanctions, but it also managed to build parallel economic, financial, and cultural structures that are independent of the West.

Economically, Russia has reoriented itself toward the East, increasing trade with China, India, and other countries in Asia and the Middle East. It has shifted its energy exports away from Europe and developed domestic production capabilities. Despite sanctions, oil money—the main source of Russia’s war financing—keeps flowing, albeit from a different direction than before. Cross-border payments are now handled through SPFS, a homegrown alternative to the SWIFT global financial system, and the Mir payment system that replaced Visa and MasterCard. Russia touts these systems to its BRICS partners as alternatives to “Western financial hegemony.”

If anything, the war in Ukraine has given Putin more money to play with than before. Assets belonging to Western companies exiting Russia have been nationalized or bought for cheap and redistributed to businesses with ties to the Kremlin—one of the largest property transfers in Russia’s history. Cut off from Western banks, Russian oligarchs must invest their money domestically. Sanctions evasion schemes protect Russians’ access to Western consumer goods, creating enormous enrichment opportunities for Russian and Western business agents alike. Tankers shuttle Russian oil with payments cleared through offshore shell companies. Putin’s personal wealth, estimated at somewhere between $70 billion and $200 billion, remains safe. Though he is a product of a socialist state, the Russian leader is a master of capitalism.

Cultural shifts in Russia increase Putin’s confidence in victory. What little dissent remained before the war has largely been rooted out, with Russians closing ranks around their leader. According to a recent poll conducted by the Levada Center in September and October, more than two-thirds of Russians who said they want the war to end are against returning Russian-occupied territories to Ukraine.

On the global stage, Russia has managed to upgrade its status from a regional power to a leader of the anti-Western coalition. These coalition members have their own stakes in Ukraine. A Russian victory would embarrass the United States, weakening its influence in Asia and helping China. North Korea has found exports—bad shells and soldiers—that it can exchange for food, money, and energy. And Iran is happy to keep the United States distracted from the Middle East.

Even if Putin wanted to end the war, it would entail serious risk for his regime. Drones, shells, and missile production would have to be scaled down, ending the economic boom. The sudden drop in government spending would create real prospects of an economic collapse. Around 1.5 million veterans would have to be pulled out of Ukraine to find new roles in a corrupt Russian society. The manufactured sense of national unity would give way to envy that beyond the border, on Russia’s “ancestral lands,” Ukrainians are thriving under European Union and NATO banners.

Taken together, in a country reacclimatized to grand-scale violence, the prospect of revolt becomes clear and present. To find an outlet for that aggression, Putin would have to start a new war not long after agreeing to settle for peace.

Ultimately, the status quo—an ongoing border squabble with conventional weapons—suits all but Ukraine and Europe, for which security deteriorates in direct proportion to Putin’s success.

The Putin that the West would face at the negotiating table is a former underdog—a man on a mission to free the world from what he has characterized as Western “hegemony,” his economy thriving, his new and old friends paying court, and his people unified behind him.

He is not, however, as invincible as he seems. The BRICS countries are not rushing to replace SWIFT with the Russian alternative. By putting all his economic eggs into the military basket, Putin has siphoned off resources from everywhere else, an unsustainable move. Inflation is real, and the ruble is weakening. Even the overheated military sector can’t keep up with demands. Moreover, as a student of Russian history, Putin knows that the support and adoration of the Russian masses can turn on its head overnight.

But Putin also knows how to keep a poker face. Having staked his survival on this war, Putin would be negotiating from the position of strength and with obligations to his domestic and international stakeholders in mind.

He has already shot an opening volley at the U.S. president-elect: After a call during which Trump told the Russian leader not to escalate in Ukraine, Russian state television released a special on Melania Trump’s modeling career, including nude photos of the once and future first lady.

The West, meanwhile, will be negotiating from a position of inherent weakness. After tiptoeing around the Kremlin’s red lines throughout the war, Western leaders have signaled their readiness to consider cessation of a large chunk of Ukrainian territory, wishing away what little leverage they had.

There is nothing stopping Putin from believing that he can’t get more. Unless Russia is decisively defeated on the battlefield or Putin is given precisely what he wants, he will not stop.

Of the options put forward for a negotiated solution, the only one that Putin would agree to is the one that gives him Ukraine’s capitulation on a platter. He will never agree to a thriving, independent, armed, and Western-aligned Ukraine on his border, because he would lose too much face. Putin will therefore demand an unviable Ukraine—without an army and without NATO membership—and, in effect, a Western surrender.

The issue of European security cannot be solved by a settlement with Moscow because appeasement only increases the aggressor’s appetite. Only the containment of Putin’s expansionism by military means will remove the existential threat to his neighbors. So long as there is an aggressive, revanchist Russia in the picture, lasting peace is an illusion.

[pharma-tard]

Share thoughts!!!!

I'm hungry so this won't be the most eloquent explanation, but basically I think it's more likely for Trump to win than Kamala. Normally that's "who gives a shit" territory for me, because a pro-war and (by nowhere but America's standards) "anti-war" president both have to deal with their country's geopolitical reality/tragectory and (more importantly) what their oligarchy wants.

But this one is meaningful mostly because of what Trump represents on the world-stage -- which is a shift to East Asia away from Europe (whereas Kamala represents the current policy). "Away" is the keyword here. Before, the US could, in the analogy of a boxing match, just change who they're swinging at with their right vs their left. They can't anymore, they can try to dodge the guy who'd get their left normally, but they have to focus on one of them at a time.

I don't think the US elite wanted to admit that, a lot of them still don't. They have a lot invested in neocolonialism in the former Warsaw Pact/Yugoslavia, but as the mode of control has increasingly become the EU (vs directly), that vassalage-autonomy has come at the price of being more expendable in extreme cases such as we live in now.

Chinese disruption to US financial hegemony is more troubling to them than the EU taking L's and it fucking up their investments in the larger region, by a lot. Their elite want to (keep) own(ing) Ukraine, for example, but they need the world to run on dollars. Right now, China is the primary country enabling dedollarization, which means China is now the majority-accepted primary threat according to the American elite.

So what I predict happening is the EU will be left to deal with Europe on their own, and the EU establishment won't have nearly as much American support to keep them in power. NATO will still be there, and the US will still try to exert influence, but mostly within the "secured" areas and ones that are more directly chained to Washington than chained through Brussels. It's clear that the EU as a junior partner is seen as a mistake to the US, as well, so in a way everything since the end of 2021 can be spun advantageously for US geopolitics.

Meanwhile, the US' focus is going to be on China, with increasing diplomatic pressure on India & trying to further inflame their situation with Pakistan. Australia, Japan, Thailand, and New Zealand will become less autonomous within the American sphere, or at least that'll be the goal, while the main geopolitical battlegrounds will be around Taiwan*, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Korean peninsula, and Burma. Maybe Bangladesh also. I think the inevitable loss to Russia in Ukraine will solidify Mongolia in the Russian/Chinese sphere of influence though.

The Middle East situation won't fundamentally change, or at least its tragectory will continue in the way it has been since the failed attempt to destroy Syria.

Anyway, they know all this and that's why media coverage around Trump has become more in the tone of him winning next, even if it is in a "oh God oh fuck" tone. All of its about marketing, manufacturing consent, and reducing shock.

[head-post]

Indian PM to visit Ukraine, weeks after trip to Russia

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will meet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a historic visit to Ukraine on Friday, a month and a half after he travelled to Moscow for talks with President Vladimir Putin.

Indian and Ukrainian officials said the visit will focus on strengthening economic ties and co-operation in defence, science and technology.

The Indian PM added that he hoped for the “early restoration of peace and stability in the region.”

However, analysts said the visit could also be an attempt by India to adopt a more neutral stance after tilting towards Russia, given Modi’s recent visit to Moscow and his country’s historic Cold War-era relationship with Russia.

Modi’s landmark visit is the first by an Indian PM to Ukraine since the country established diplomatic relations with Ukraine more than 30 years ago. He will arrive in Kyiv after a two-day visit to Poland.

Analysts say the timing of the trip is aimed at controlling fallout from the Indian leader’s July 8-9 trip to Russia.

Modi visited Russia in early July and met Putin. The Russian leader received the high-ranking guest first at the Kremlin and then at his residence in Novo-Ogaryovo. The main topics of the talks were the situation in Ukraine, use of payment systems and expansion of trade. Putin also invited the Indian prime minister to Kazan for the BRICS summit.

Meanwhile, Minister of Defence Li Shangfu and Premier of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China Li Qiang arrived in Minsk on a three-day working visit to discuss topical issues of bilateral military co-operation. They arrived in Belarus from Russia, where he took part in the Eleventh Moscow Conference on International Security.

Read more HERE

[transingthebourgeoisie]

Whatever Joe Biden wrote in that WP article China won't allow any alternative to One Road One Belt One World that the US wants to run through India and Israel. It won't ever allow it to happen because it will bypass Moscow-Tehran-Beijing Axis alliance of resistance. It will erase Israel and Kosovo and Ukraine along with all the Central Asians countries to prevent it from happening. New Fronts Balkans, South China Sea. US can't fight on 4 fronts at once against China. US losing already in Ukraine. Ukraine falls, Israel falls, US/NATO loses and then Russia with China will control the Eurasian continent from Vladivostok to Manche as Medvedev (second in command to Putin) declared. The Ultimatum was to US/NATO not to Ukraine and Israel. US capitulates in Europe and Middle East and then capitulates in South China Sea and Taiwan. There will be no more flagship of democracy. BRICS will rule the 21st century when dictatorships win the hybrid world war. They already won demographically. 

1. Good. Death to America. 2. 'they won demographically' my man if you were hoping to convince me with, insane racism, you are barking up the wrong tree.