Armistice or Armageddon?


To put things in crystal-clear perspective, there is only one of two ways that the war in Ukraine can conclude; Either Russia prevails or nuclear weapons are used

According to columnist, essayist, author, lecturer and former foreign correspondent for the International Herald Tribune, Patrick Lawrence, that’s the choice.

Neither side can afford to lose in Ukraine. But what is at stake for Russia and what is at stake for the US – via its Ukraine proxy – are two very different things, he says.

To the Russian people it is fundamental; – to lose in Ukraine would be a direct threat to Russia’s security, sovereignty, and ultimately to the Russian Federation’s survival. And so, in light of that understanding, and given Washington’s record of fostering insurrections in foreign nations for its own ends, Russia simply cannot flinch.

So what’s it to be – Armistice or Armageddon?

In mulling over that dreadful question, please first ask yourself another; – what do you really know about the war in Ukraine, – NO, not what you believe to be true, but what do you really know?

It’s my guess that most of what people think they know about the war in Ukraine will have come to them via the media. And on the face of it that’s fair enough – how else are we supposed to get to know anything?

But in the light of the investigation into foreign news service feeds to Radio New Zealand being edited to allegedly make them pro-Russia, what does that say about the “unedited” versions of those stories which the rest of us have been fed. And how have they influenced our understanding of what we think we know?

TDB Recommends

If RNZ’s “edited” news stories can be deemed to have been made “pro-Russian”, might we conclude that the “unedited” versions were the polar-opposite, “pro-Western”, or is the news we’re supplied by foreign news agencies truth beyond question?

The CEO of Radio New Zealand says the news stories supplied by our media’s foreign news services are sacrosanct and cannot be altered without consent. And you might be happy with that. You might trust that someone unknown to you, working for an unknown foreign news service, covering a story involving the potential for human annihilation, can be trusted to tell you the truth, and there’s an end to it.

If that be the case, if you’re happy with the assurance that foreign news services are so trustworthy, then you’ll be more than happy for our media to save some money and, rather than sending their own people, get one of those agencies to cover the All Black games in the upcoming Rugby World Cup.

Malcolm Evans

PS – And it also follows, you’ll also be happy to accept the reporting on Ukraine by this list of foreign correspondents;



  1. Thank you Malcom,
    I wish it was just Ukraine news in which propaganda had replaced reportage.
    The Ukraine Government has banned reporters on the ground and instead produces its own account, and so-called reporters simply reproduce it.

    It’s worth looking at the board of directors of the group in the independent journalism site to which you linked. Of the top of my head, it includes John Pilger, Chris Hedges and Jill Steiin spring to mind.

    There are still excellent journalists producing old-school information and analysis reporting. What astonishes me is how marginalised actual journalism has become. In order to have any kind of informational outline on almost any subject it is necessary to seek-out and read a variety of sources from a wide variety of angles. This used to be the job of journalists. What on earth has happened to journalism?

        • Yup – ‘Do your own research’ = The video made by Mad Barry who lives down the road in his mums garage is factually correct whereas what you have read from award-winning reputable newspapers is in fact nothing but propaganda disseminated by The Thought Police in an attempt to control you.

          • Ah yes, actually reading documents at the library should be substituted for simply believing whatever Murdoch tells you.

  2. Reading and listening to the NZ media is a cross between Women’s Weekly for local news and celebrity fluff, and New Pravda for foreign news.

    “New Pravda” is a consortium of WAPO, NYT, BBC all directed by the US/UK Deep state in which journalistic integrity has been sent to die.

    Some suggest the Web has fostered “alt news” and conspiracy theories. Well keep watching because the Web is where you can find those brave enough to tell the truth.

  3. There is a third option. Russia withdraws its troops, pays restitution and accepts Ukraine as an independent nation. A nation that is free to join or nor join any alliance, friendship or trade partnership.

    The nation that Russia must have a “barrier” between it and NATO countries is patently absurd as it already borders Finland and the Baltic States.

    Problem for Russia is geopolitical and confrontation is not going to appease its insecurities. It can only appease those insecurities by negotiation not imperialistic aggression.

    Russian Federation is falling apart as it has not invested in the regions as it has on St Petersberg, Moscow or its military. The Russians have only themselves to blame if the federation collapses. Belarus is likely to be next to become pro European.

    AS for nuclear war. That Russia cannot win (not will Western Europe win). Russia will not win in the sense that it survives as a federation without St Petersberg and Moscow. Those two powerhouse cities will be first targeted by the missiles in the 6 British, 3 French and 16 USA submarines in the Mediteranean and Baltic seas.

    That is the idiocy of the need for Russia that Ukraine be a buffer state.

    Strategically the Crimea is lost to the Russians with the blowing up of the dam and the loss of water for Crimea to remain a productive region. Sure they may have feet on the ground but without water the place will return to a unproductive state in need of constant expenditure (much like Chechnya is a viable state only through massive Russian injection of cash) .

    No’ there are many alternatives to a Russian win or a nuclear winter. A nuclear winter where Russia will no longer be a player in the current Chinese/USA/Russia power triangle. Mind you they were loosing that state to India very fast so this adds to the problem that Russia is having. They simply are no longer relevant except for having nuclear weapons. China will take their Siberian resources and India their industrial powerbase.

    • Gerrit, You clearly aren’t educated in Russia and the Russian people. Strategically your analyse will leave Russia vulnerable to nuclear attacks which is why any military general will scoff at the thought of Ukrainian becoming a NATO ally when it was originally ally of Russia well before the USSR was dissolved.

      Even the current head of the CIA Bill Burns when he was the US ambassador to Russia in 2008 reiterated that Ukraine joining NATO is the brightest of redlines and Russia will take steps as they did against Georgia that same year when it was announced at the NATO Bucharest summit on the 4 April 2008 that Georgia was to join NATO.

      And as for Sweden and the Fins joining NATO, well you clearly lack historical literacy as they’re less threatening to Russia and actually have been apart of NATO other than in name since NATO became a thing.

      Russia will prevail thanks to the west miscalculation that has inadvertently pushed 2 great superpower closer has to go down as one of the biggest strategic blunders in history.

      • Ukraine wasn’t an ‘ally’ of Russia before the collapse of the USSR – they had no choice in the matter much like the Baltic countries (for a start).

      • You clearly are more educated then me but your power of using that education is lacks common sense. The need fort Russia to use Ukraine as a buffer state clearly makes no sense when NATO nuclear (or conventional weaponry) is easily placed in the Baltic Sea right on the border. The need for Ukraine to be the “buffer” zone on the pretense to keep NATO at arms length from Russia proper is patently absurd. Shows the Russians still think that NATO was going to roll tanks across the Ukraine and Belarus to attack St Petersberg and Moscow.

        So what will Russia prevailing look like? Occupy Ukraine and install a puppet regime? Ukraine is not Chechnya or Georgia. Russia does not have the manpower to maintain law and order in a country the size of Ukraine. Especially now that Ukrainian nationalism is at an all time high. The boat for Russian reoccupation of Ukraine has sailed.

        Historical literacy? Maybe understand the Budapest Memorandum in your historical literacy. Worth a read for homework;

        “Three decades ago, the newly independent country of Ukraine was briefly the third-largest nuclear power in the world.

        Thousands of nuclear arms had been left on Ukrainian soil by Moscow after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. But in the years that followed, Ukraine made the decision to completely denuclearize.

        In exchange, the U.S., the U.K. and Russia would guarantee Ukraine’s security in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum.”

        • Gerrit talks shit ,,,,,, and won’t call things by their proper names,,, again.

          ie; “Especially now that Ukrainian nationalism is at an all time high.” ,,, what he means ‘Neo-Nazis and the Far Right Are On the March in Ukraine’

          ie 2 — ” “Three decades ago, the newly independent country of Ukraine was briefly the third-largest nuclear power in the world…. Ukraine made the decision to completely denuclearize.” ,,, Ukraine NEVER had control/launch codes etc for these soviet nuclear weapons, which were either returned to Russia or dismantled, according to what the Russians wanted.

          ie 3 — ” China will take their Siberian resources …” …. China is far more likely to buy-up and end up owning the wet cold hole known as England ,,,, due to the neolib neocon clowns that Gerrit shills for, taking it down the gurgler into bankruptcy.

  4. There is another option for Russia.

    Unconditional surrender

    It seems the Kremlin is in no hurry to leave the Ukraine… and I say…. they won’t.

    For all of those contributors here who think getting rid of Putin will solve anything are mistaken.
    The real Russian war hawk is Medvedev

    • A post which fittingly displays your capacity to contribute to the conversation.

      Try reading and thinking – as if it was 100& right. Test your own understanding. If you are so confident Malcolm is wrong, you have nothing to fear from pretending he is right.

  5. Translation – If you don’t agree with Malcolm it is because you are stupid and it hasn’t occurred to you that not everything you will ever hear or read may in fact not be the truth. Further we should all be fine with Russia invading an independent & sovereign country and while doing so executing the civilian population because – you know – they have nucs.

    Israel also purportedly have nucs Malcolm but let me guess you wouldn’t be a ‘fan boy’ for an invasion of the Gaza Strip?

  6. To put things in crystal-clear perspective, there is only one of two ways that the war in Ukraine can conclude; Either Russia prevails or nuclear weapons are used Malcolm Evans.

    The only one threatening to use nuclear weapons are the Russians.

    The message here is we will use use nuclear weapons if we don’t get our way in Ukraine.

    While threatening to escalate to the use of nuclear weapons, in the next sentence the same people will say, if Ukraine insists on resisting our invasion that is “Escalation”.

    Russia resorts to the use of nuclear weapons to the revulsion of the whole world, not least by the Russian people. Putin will be dragged out of his Kremlin office and hanged on the nearest lamp post by the Russian people. No military force or presidential guard will be able to resist them.

    My estimation; Putin and his backers are too afraid to directly use nuclear weapons. Instead Putin, in fear of his own people, will try some sort of deniable escalation, just as he did with the destruction of the Kakhovka dam, Putin and his propagandists and on line troll army will blame the blowing up of the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant and the irradiation of large parts of Ukraine and Europe, on the Ukrainians.

    • Pat seems to be claiming that Russia ‘started’ the missile crisis (which nobody hopes will escalate to a nuclear exchange, surely — not even the neo-cons).

      Who reneged on the Genscher Line assurances from the Two-Plus-Four talks? Who withdrew from nearly all of the arms control treaties? Who placed the Aegis Mk. 41 V.L.S. in Romania and Poland — which could be set up to fire cruise missiles with W80 thermonuclear warheads (150 kt.) — within range of Moscow?

      • “Pat seems to be claiming that Russia ‘started’ the missile crisis”

        What missile crisis?

        Don’t make me laugh.

        The given excuse that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was about Russia’s fear of missiles on their borders. Total bullshit

        We have had a missile crisis ever since ballistic missiles were invented and the superpowers had the ability to target each others’ cities from half a world away. They don’t have to be anywhere near a border. And this capability has become more sophisticated reliable and with pin point accuracy, with the passing of time. Precision guided hyper sonic missiles are only the latest iteration. China claims that their hypersonic precision weapons have the capability to send every capital ship of the US Pacific fleet to the bottom of the ocean before their crews could get out of their bunks. The US claims that they they can sink the entire Russian Black Sea fleet in about the same amount of time. Not to mention missiles can also be launched into Russia from submarines anywhere Russia touches the sea, even from under the ice cap. With all these threats worrying about missiles on the borders is pretty pointless.

        With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine voluntarily gave away their cross border nuclear missiles in exchange for a guarantee from Russia of their independence. (An historical event Putin claims was the worst disaster in history and one he wants to reverse.)

        There is zero evidence that the US or Nato were preparing to move long range missiles into Ukraine to target Russia. I defy anyone to show any proof of this particular steaming pile of bullshit.

        Famously neutral Finland which had long resisted joining NATO, faced with Russian aggression in Ukraine dropped their opposition to Nato. Now that NATO is on Russia’s border in a bigger way than ever before the Russian Federation shows no concern at all. And has even withdrawn forces from this border. That Russia invaded because of fears of Nato build up at the Ukraine border is just simply. Bullshit.

        What the apologists for Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine just can’t bring themselves to accept, is that Russia is an imperialist kleptocratic capitalist state, that invaded Ukraine for the same reasons that the US imperialists brutally invaded Iraq – for resources and for greater rates of profit than they can make in their home market.

        • Nailed it Pat:
          “What the apologists for Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine just can’t bring themselves to accept, is that Russia is an imperialist kleptocratic capitalist state, that invaded Ukraine for the same reasons that the US imperialists brutally invaded Iraq – for resources and for greater rates of profit than they can make in their home market.”

            • That’s just silly, why would i have used the Ukrainian Slava Iraq when I was protesting the US invasion?

              Our slogans were “Hands off Iraq”, and “No Blood For Oil”

              The thing is Paul, no one knows what an anonymous troll did during that time, whereas my record of opposing imperialist and colonialist wars is long verifiable and proven.

  7. To put things in crystal-clear perspective, there is only one of two ways that the war in Ukraine can conclude; Either Russia prevails or nuclear weapons are used Malcolm Evans

    A clear admission by Malcolm Evans that Russia can not ‘prevail’ by conventional means.

    This is how the propaganda will go; The Ukronazis bombed the Zaporizhia Nuclear power plant to make Russia look bad.

    Of course this will convince few. But it may be enough to sow a seed of doubt among the Russian populace, possibly enough to save Putin from the waiting lamp post.

      • “Why can they not prevail by conventional means?” Kristoff R.

        You need to direct that question to Malcolm who who threatened “Either Russia prevails or nuclear weapons are used”

        • Pat, its not about what you think, its about what the Russian think and if they believe they’re under existential threat then they’ll react according to their beliefs and there’s nothing you nor anyone else can do a damn thing about.

  8. The problem with the position you have chosen to defend, Malcolm, is that it is utterly insupportable. Why? Because of the incontestable fact that on 24 February 2022, Russian military forces invaded the sovereign territory of Ukraine.

    Not only did the Russian Federation’s invasion violate the UN Charter and international law, but also its own guarantee of Ukraine’s borders – issued at the time of Ukraine’s voluntary dismantling of its own nuclear arsenal.

    Ever since the Nuremburg Trials, the plotting and launching of aggressive war has been regarded as a Crime Against Humanity.

    You have picked the wrong side, comrade.

    • You can assert Russian/Putin war crimes but they are just assertions not judgements.
      Russia/Putin assert they are justified in their actions. Those who wish to be informed should familiarise themselves with them.

      • sorry, should be:
        You can assert Russian/Putin war crimes but they are just assertions not judgements.
        Russia/Putin assert they are justified in their actions. Those who wish to be informed should familiarise themselves with their arguments.

    • Chris, you obviously believe that Russian concerns about their security expressed and ignored by the West count for nothing. That’s on the record.
      You also obviously believe that Ukraine was adhering to the Minsk Accords. They weren’t fact.
      So did you want Cuban Missile v2? Did you want continuous shelling of Donbass civilians?

      Tell us Chris, who was going to stop the above? What options do you realistically think Russia had? Demonstrate to us that there was international goodwill and efforts from the US and NATO to avert the Russian response.

    • “Ever since the Nuremburg Trials, the plotting and launching of aggressive war has been regarded as a Crime Against Humanity.”

      Indeed, and that’s why Bush & Blair faced the full force of the ICC for the Iraq invasion, were found guilty and sentenced to death.

      Oh wait….

    • Thanks for your input Chris, but no, I don’t retreat on inch from my position. But, coming from one whose essays are usually so detailed, I find your summing-up of the situation extraordinary for its shallowness.
      Put simply, in 2014 the US engineered a coup in Ukraine which resulted in a civil war erupting between the new regime and all Ukrainian nationals of Russian ethnic origin. That resulted in eight years of misery death and destruction being rained on millions of those ethnically-Russian Ukrainians, during which time Russia entered into repeated negotiations to avoid going to war (all stymied by the US and its NATO allies) till finally, in 2022, it had no option but to do so – just as the US engineered the outcome to be. That being the case, all that has since ensued has been entirely predictable, including Russia’s restraint. Do let me know if any part of my summation is factually or chronologically wrong.

      • “Do let me know if any part of my summation is factually or chronologically wrong.”

        Sure why not.

        Not that facts will change your dogmatic surety that Russia is the victim, not the imperialist aggressor. Nor do I think the facts will make you disavow your justification for Russia to use nuclear weapons to achieve their imperialist war aims.
        But it may be instructive for others.

        I will take your “summation” apart piece by piece, one by one, as I get the time.

        Starting with this one:

        “…in 2014 the US engineered a coup in Ukraine” Malcolm Evans

        The CIA engineered a coup in Ukraine? When it comes to total fantastical conspiracy theory bullshit completely divorced from the reality, you couldn’t beat that one.

        For anyone interested, the documentary “Winter On Fire” filmed on the ground while actual events were unfolding will provide a better grounding to understanding the popular uprising against the Yanukovich regime than Malcolm’s conspiracy theory of a CIA plot.

      • There is no dispute that the CIA have engineered a number of successful and unsuccessful coups to overthrow popular leftist governments. All of these CIA coups involved the use of professional (read paid) standing army or trained paramilitary mercenary forces. None involved hundreds of thousands of unpaid civilians protesting in the streets.

        1953 Iran coup

        1954 Guatemala coup

        1961 Cuba failed coup

        1964 Brazil coup

        1975 Chile coup

        Richard Nixon gave the order to overthrow Allende. According to a declassified document from the NSA, the handwritten notes from Richard Helms (CIA director at the time) state: “1 in 10 chance perhaps, but save Chile!; worth spending; not concerned; no involvement of embassy; $10,000,000 available, more if necessary; full-time job–best men we have; game plan; make the economy scream; 48 hours for plan of action.” These notes came from a meeting Helms had with President Nixon, indicating the administration’s willingness to stage a coup in Chile and the extent to which Nixon was willing to go to do so.[16]

        1987 Fiji coup

        …“A leftist coalition that has pledged to ban US nuclear warships from Fiji won an election victory today over the staunchly pro- Western party that had ruled since independence from Britain in 1970.” Times reporter Nicholas D. Kristof wrote an article (4/30/87) headlined “Fiji’s Leaders Weigh Curbs on Nuclear Ships,”….
        …..The Times’ 185 column inches on the Fiji coup neglected to mention that the four-week-old Bavadra government had instituted free medical care, resolved to protect Fijian timber resources, created an Institute for Fijian Language and Culture, and promised greater access for Fijians to Fiji Development Bank loans, which had been going to foreign-owned business.
        Kristof’s reports from Fiji also failed to take note of the momentous visit to the tiny nation by the chief US delegate to the UN and former CIA deputy director Gen. Vernon Walters–two weeks after the election and two weeks before the coup. ….
        … “Wherever that character [Walters] travels around the world, there always seems to be a transfer of power from a democratically elected government to a military junta,” New Zealand MP Bill Sutton told the New Zealand Herald. (Sutton was apparently referring to Walters’ role in the 1953 Iranian coup that brought the Shah to power and the 1964 overthrow of Brazilian President Goulart.)

        It is significant that Vernon Walters never met with any government ministers of the elected administration of Timoci Bavadra, but instead chose to meet with a then obscure Fijian army Col. Sitiveni Rabuka.

        (This list is not exhaustive.)

        No CIA coup has ever involved hundreds of thousands of unpaid civilians protesting in the streets.
        Arrests, torture and extrajudicial murder and disappearances of civil leaders and community activists, the replacement of civilian government with a military junta, all the hallmark of successful CIA coups, none of these abuses and atrocities, followed the Maidan protests that brought down Yanukovych. Most of the same civilian leaders and activists stayed in place. Instead of arresting activists, hundreds of activists jailed or disappeared and tortured by Yanukovych were released.

        This is the thing; What Malcolm Evans shares with all the anonymous pro-war trolls who infest this website is that he never cites any evidence at all of his accusation that “The CIA engineered a coup in Ukraine” No links to witness statements, no witness testimony to camera. Zero citations or references to any documentary evidence, (from any source). Nada, Nix, zero, Zilch. We are just supposed to take his word for it.

      • “…eight years of misery death and destruction being rained on millions of those ethnically-Russian Ukrainians” Malcolm Evans

        “Do let me know if any part of my summation is factually or chronologically wrong.” Malcolm Evans.

        Sure why not. II

        Again just like Malcolm’s previous statement that the CIA engineered a coup in Ukraine. There is zero evidence to back up his claim that Ukrainians have been raining death, misery and destruction on their fellow Ukrainians of Russian ethnicity. None.

        Malcolm’s unsubstantiated claim that ethic Russians were being persecuted by the Ukrainian authorities, echoes Vladimir Putin’s claim that he ordered the invasion of Ukraine because of the “genocide” of Ethnic speakers by the Ukrainian authorities. Which pretty much echoes Hitler’s claim that he invaded Poland because of the persecution of ethnic Germans by the Polish authorities.

        “The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime,” Vladimir Putin February 24, 2022, televised address.

        Let’s look at the sources that are available to us.

        If Malcolm has any sources or information on this alleged genocide to back up his claims that Russian speakers are being persecuted in Ukraine, then he is welcome to present them. But he won’t, because he can’t. This evidence just doesn’t exist.

        I know he won’t, But Do let me know Malcolm, if any part of my summation is factually or chronologically wrong.

        What I might say here, is that Malcolm Evans’ support for Russian imperialism’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, far from helping the Palestinian cause, is damaging it.

        I leave the last word to Russian speaking Ukrainians confronting the invading Russian forces

    • Blah, blah, blah. what about Yuogslayia, Aghanistan, Iraq… YAILSS++++ ? Iraq all by itself is 10x times worse than Russia’s intervention, if assessed with equanimity. Unless you’re a racist, ignorant, or chauvinist.

      Russia tried for decades to talk about its need for security. Security for all. No one listened. Because the diktat of the hegemon is that force is only legitimate if wielded with the approval of the Western mafia.
      That is the only thesis being rejected here.
      They thought they could stoke Ukraine as a threat and launching pad on the border with impunity. They were wrong.

      • That old fall back for supporters of Imperialist aggression. When all else fails – Whataboutism.

        “what about Yuogslayia, Aghanistan, Iraq… YAILSS++++ ?” Paul

        Whataboutism is a propaganda technique of responding to an accusation, by making a counter accusation, or raising a different issue.
        Whataboutism changes the subject without addressing the question.

        Hitler used it.
        Hitler and Goebbels justified German imperialist aggression by citing the excesses and cruelties of Soviet and British Imperialism.

        “Iraq all by itself is 10x times worse than Russia’s intervention” Paul

        American war crimes are 10x worse than Russian war crimes.

        American genocide is 10x worse than Russsian genocide.

        American invasions are 10x worse than Russian invasions.

        It’s not a competition, genocide is genocide, war crimes are war crimes, invasion is still invasion no matter who does it.
        How are we meant to decide whose genocide and war crimes are better?

        By the number of dead children, by the number of refugees, by the number of flattened cities?

    • Russia is using the same legal framework for their SMO as the USA and NATO used for attacking Serbia in 1999 related to a protection of an ethnic group under imminent attack.

      • Whataboutism.

        Russia using the same legal framework for their SMO as the USA and NATO used for attacking Serbia in 1999.

        And this makes it right, How?

  9. both sides are lying shitbags accept that we won’t KNOW anything for at least 20yrs

    on a sidebar the lack of liberal outrage over ukraine using depleated uranium projectiles after bleating so much about their use in the middle east is telling in and of itself

  10. It’s as simple as this- Russia has achieved none of its stated political or military objectives apart from creating a ‘land bridge’ to Crimea.

    Their ‘special operation’ has only encouraged much more Nato involvement in eastern Europe. Their operation was based on flawed assumptions, now Russia’s weaknesses in the air, navy and army, command, tactics and logistics have been exposed. Putin had the opportunity to save face by withdrawing immediately after the ‘demonstration’. Now they are locked into an ongoing conflict to hold on to what they have (maybe until the US election?- and that’s still making assumptions) Even so, it can only lead eventually to a repeat of a Brest-Litovsk treaty in 1917 and we know what happened after that.

    Putin believed his own propaganda, and in failing to address its own failings Russia simply falls back on generalised anti-American and colonist rhetoric. Putin has been in power for far too long (23 years) and silenced critics and encouraged his yes men. His successors are now only his competitors -waiting in the wings.

    • That not the analysis of US general Cavoli speaking at a senate committee last month. He made the point that Russia militarily hasn’t been affected negatively with their SMO. If you actually followed military history know that Russia has always been armed to face NATO any day since the Cold War. They’ve modernized their military since Mr Putin became leader.

      Their Factories have been full speed non-stop since the SMO in 2022. And they aren’t suffering as the western MSM claim. They had began construction of the Siberian oil & gas pipeline in 2016 thru Mongolian to China and a second pipeline is about to be finalized. The gas started flowing in 2020.

      You need to get out of the western bubble news feed .

  11. To put things in crystal-clear perspective, there is only one of two ways that the war in Ukraine can conclude; Either Russia prevails or nuclear weapons are used.

    Although simplistic in its content, this has been my exact thoughts on this war.
    Despite which way you view this war, rightly or wrongly, Putins only perspective is he won’t be beaten. The nuclear weapon is his last resort but a resort I believe Putin would use should he face losing.

    • Even if he (Putin) uses nuclear weapons “as a last resort”, he cannot win for the retaliation will see the destruction of St Petersberg and Moscow. He is in a no win situation. Presuming his generals will push the big red button on his order to fire the first shots.

      Lose on the battle field and lose a nuclear confrontation. The destruction of Russia will be complete and unrecoverable.

      Only way Russia can “win” is to cease hostilities, withdraw and pay restitution. They cannot win anything by continuing aggression. Russia cannot occupy and maintain control over Ukraine for any length of time and say that is a win.

      Similarly NATO cannot backdown its support for Ukraine as the Russian sphere of influence will be directly on the Polish border.

      • He has said, he will not sacrifice Russia for the world. Putin will always strike hard with a step change, trying to get attention, and if that strike is on European ports and airfields, the difference between Nato accepted that admonishment and a nuclear strike is minimal. Russia’s conditions for war and first strike have already been met. Russia has a superior modernised arsenal and will fare as well as anyone out of this idiotic catastrophic disaster.
        The worst part of Western propaganda is not the total ignorance of Russia’s case, but that they delude the common person into thinking Russia will put up with being “Cancelled”, or that it lacks the capacity to resist. Times have changed. ticking your fingers in your ears denying it won’t change anything.

        • That is a big bet to take. Betting that NATO sits on its haunches and lets Russia use nukes without retaliation.

          The other bet is that Russia has the “modernised arsenal” to defend against a nuclear strike or even conventional forces launched across a wide front from the Finnish border down to the Black Sea. Not to sure when we see soviet era tanks such as the T55 being pressed into service and when we DON’T see the much vaunted T14 in action.

          Remember NATO has only two targets in Russia to destroy to bring the Russian federation to its knees. Russia has many many targets to try and destroy NATO.

          Russia cannot “win” this war with the concepts of keeping NATO at bay using Ukraine as some sort of benign buffer zone. No longer a possibility.

          Bet China is urging a Russian nuclear attack for the retaliation from NATO will be swift and destructive. Leaving resource rich Siberia ready for the easiest of reclamation off, previously held territories. Much more profitable than a Taiwanese invasion.

          • No, If Russia makes a heavy conventional strike on Nato, it has to suck it up and end – or then we go nuclear.

            Russia will hit Nato if they don’t back off. Hopefully the destruction of US in Syria via proxy, to save Nato face.

            I don’t know where you get your ideas about Russia only have two targets, etc. For me, the Russian sources have been far more accurate and pragmatic for years because they knew they were behind in 2007, and now they know they are not. Believe me, it is critical that interested parties as yourself start reading alternate sources to balance your perspective to demand we deescalate. I recommend the (frozen for fear of the current escalation) Vineyard of the Saker analysis. It is a frank and accurate view from the Russian side. There is a reason Nato hasn’t pushed “weak” Russia out of Ukraine, and it’s not a lack of desire for destroying it.

        • if Israel threatened to use nuclear weapons on Gaza, would Malcolm Evans be calling on the Palestinians to stop their resistance to Zionist occupation, military raids, extrajudicial assassinations, detention without trial, house demolitions, land confiscations, missile and fighter bomber attacks on Gaza, and all the other evils the Zionist colonisers visit on the Palestinians?

          Of course he wouldn’t.

          All the comments from the anonymous pro-war trolls justifying Russia’s resort to nuclear weapons to end the Ukrainian resistance is to be expected I suppose

          More surprising and out of character, is that Malcolm Evans justifies the genocidal escalation to the use of nuclear weapons if Ukraine doesn’t stop resisting the Russian invader.

          • Unlike Malcolm Evans, not out of character in rationalising the use of nuclear weapons to defeat Ukraine, is the Kremlin’s official media mouthpiece RT

            ….major debate among experts in Russia about nuclear weapons, their role and the conditions of their use.

            …. Sergey Karaganov’s status as a former presidential adviser to both Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin, and his position as head of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, a noted Moscow think tank.

            RT has decided it would be beneficial for our readers to read it in full. The following piece has been translated and lightly edited.



            As I have written before, every imperialist power is genocidal. Genocide is one of the tools imperialists keep in their tool kit for getting their way for when other methods fail.

            Nuclear weapons are just the fastest way of committing genocide.

  12. Officially, before the biff started. The Dooms Day Clock was set at 90 seconds to Kaaboom!

    14 months down the road it hasn’t moved official but my best guess it’s nearing 20 seconds to midnight.

    Any other folks wanna have a guess?

    OPEC & the Saudi-Russian oil producers have just planted an IED, an Inflationary Explosive Device in the path of the Western Nations back pockets. They’ve agreed to a cut in oil production by 500,000 bpd and another 500,000 bpd if the first one doesn’t have a decent affect on inflation for the West. How sore do you want your nono to get?

  13. “To put things in crystal-clear perspective, there is only one of two ways that the war in Ukraine can conclude; To put things in crystal-clear perspective, there is only one of two ways that the war in Ukraine can conclude; Either Russia prevails or nuclear weapons are used

    According to columnist, essayist, author, lecturer and former foreign correspondent for the International Herald Tribune, Patrick Lawrence, that’s the choice.”

    Perhaps it needs to be made explicit that what that means is the only way US etc can prevail is by the US etc using nuclear weapons.

    • Or, the US stops their proxy war against Russia.

      Sacrificing Ukraine and Ukrainians for American values.

      PS. Iran has just visited and signed up agreements with Venezuela.

      Next. Nukes to Mexico!!

      So much for the US’s Monroe Doctrine. Fuck’em.

  14. Gee, there are still a lot of WMD invasion supporters here, pro-US proxy war in Cannon fodder Ukraine against Russia.

    Remember how Iraq ended up yah dumb fucks!

  15. “The advent of nuclear weapons is the result of the intervention of the Almighty, who, appalled that mankind had unleashed two world wars within a generation, costing tens of millions of lives, gave us the weapons of Armageddon to show those who had lost their fear of hell that it existed.” Sergey Karaganov, former presidential adviser to both Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin, and head of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy.

    “To put things in crystal-clear perspective, there is only one of two ways that the war in Ukraine can conclude; Either Russia prevails or nuclear weapons are used” Malcolm Evans, New Zealand cartoonist.

    Popular peoples war in Ukraine and Russian will either prevent nuclear war. or stop it after it starts. For all their talk about the direct use of nuclear weapons, Putin and the Russian elites around him know that there is a lamp post in Russia with their name on it if they use nuclear weapons. More likely they will resort to some more deniable nuclear escalation like blowing up the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant and then blaming Ukraine for it. This will hardly fool anyone, but it may create a seed of doubt in the minds of the Russian people that might postpone Putin’s appointment with that lamp post.

  16. “….the only way US etc can prevail is by the US etc using nuclear weapons.” Seer

    Zero evidence, zero links to any proofs. We are just expected to accept the word of another anonymous apologist for Russian aggression spreading a huge dump of bullshit.

    The only side that has threatened the use of nuclear weapons is the Russian side.

    And they are quite open about it.

    In response to Russia’s threats to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the US has threatened to destroy Russia’s military potential with conventional weapons.,David%20Petraeus%20warned%20on%20Sunday.

    The pro-war lies are just getting stupid and less attached to reality.

  17. So… is it here and now that I mention Ecstasy powder/pills followed be a mass hug-in? Ergo Methyl​enedioxy​methamphetamine. When all else fails, give drugs a go.

  18. A lightbulb moment for Medvedev

    After stationing nuclear weapons in Belarus in defiance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to which they are a signatory, prominent Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev, then labels Poland’s leaders as ‘degenerates’ for asking NATO to station nuclear weapons in Poland.

    Isn’t that the exactly the same thing?

    Exerpt from RT

    …Earlier this week, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki called on NATO to include Warsaw in the bloc’s Nuclear Sharing Program….
    …..Medvedev, who currently serves as the deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, noted that such a scenario would have a positive side to it, too.
    “All dudas, morawieckis, kaczynskis and other scum will disappear,” Medvedev wrote, apparently referring to the Polish president, premier, and the head of the ruling Law and Justice party…..

    I find it interesting that Medvedev thinks that the positioning of nuclear weapons on their territory will lead to the disappearance of the current Polish leadership, presumably at the hands of the Polish people.

    If Putin dared to carry out his threat to use tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine, it would be the end of him and his regime at the hands of the Russian people.

    How can Medvedev think the first outcome is likely, but not the second?

    Dmitry Medvedev’s statement that the Polish leadership will disappear for deploying nuclear weapons, must accompany a dawning realisation that the same fate awaits him if Russia ever carries out its threat to USE nuclear weapons.

    If the current Russian leadership dare to carry out their threat to use a tactical nuclear weapon against Ukraine. It is my contention that the Russian people will revolt. Putin, and especially Medvedev, are acutely aware that somewhere in Russia there is a waiting lamppost with their names on it.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.