In any case, I never suggested the US/NATO are "dangerous" -- except to themselves and Ukraine.
NATO built its Mother of All Proxy Armies in Ukraine to harm Russia, which has responded by destroying it.
1/12
@SydneyFreedberg The original, very formidable AFU was wrecked by July. The second, much smaller and more poorly equipped NATO/AFU hybrid army has now been wrecked, necessitating this current attempt to cobble together a third, which will be substantially weaker than the previous two.
2/
@SydneyFreedberg The Russians wrecked the first two armies with one hand tied behind their back. Now they have mobilized, equipped, and trained 300k reservists + ~100k new volunteers. In total, they have close to 500k uncommitted troops poised to move when Gerasimov gives the order.
3/
@SydneyFreedberg From the moment in early February 2022 when the AFU concentrated its forces and commenced its artillery preparation to attack the Donbass, this war became existential for all parties involved – Russia, NATO, and Ukraine. Its inevitable outcome should now be clear to all.
4/
@SydneyFreedberg The only question left unanswered is at what point the US/NATO will come to grips with that inevitable outcome, and cease its self-destructive (and murderous, to Ukraine) insanity in a desperate bid to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
5/
@SydneyFreedberg The greatest danger is posed by the #EmpireAtAllCosts cult in Washington and London. If those fools succeed in persuading their political leaders to sanction direct military intervention into this war, it will prove catastrophic, and very possibly result in nuclear war.
6/
@SydneyFreedberg Those who believe direct US intervention in this war can turn its tide are militarily clueless idiots. As I have repeatedly argued, the US could not win and must not fight a war against Russia in eastern Europe.
@SydneyFreedberg Aside from the crazy Poles and the impotent Baltic chihuahuas, no other European NATO members will join an Anglo-American intervention in Ukraine. And even if they did, they could not sustain high-intensity warfare for more than about 6 weeks.
8/
@SydneyFreedberg This would then place them on the horns of an even worse dilemma than they face right now: withdraw in humiliation, or destroy western civilization by resorting to nuclear strikes against Russia.
9/
@SydneyFreedberg Expanding NATO towards Russia’s borders over the past quarter century was a HUGE strategic blunder. Russia was impotent for many years to do much about it, but they aren’t anymore. Now they demand NATO return to its 1997 borders – and they mean it.
@SydneyFreedberg For reasons that go far beyond this war in Ukraine, American global hegemony is over.
As a result of this war, NATO will cease as a viable alliance.
China, Russia, and Iran will become dominant in their respective spheres of influence.
A multipolar world has returned.
11/
@SydneyFreedberg The United States must choose to accept these inexorable realities and refocus on domestic concerns, or destroy itself in a futile attempt to forestall the inevitable.
12/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A major twist has emerged in the Israel / Iran War.
Pakistan is apparently deadly serious about taking Iran under its nuclear umbrella.
In my April 2024 essay All for One and One for All, I wrote the following:
1/
It did not occur to me at the time that Pakistan would be a potentially major player in a US/Israel war against Iran. That was an embarrassing oversight on my part.
Even a cursory glance at a map of the region should have prompted me to examine the question more closely.
2/
Of course Pakistan will be a major player in this war!
And it doesn't matter if Pakistan really would nuke Tel Aviv in response to an Israeli nuclear attack against Iran.
All that matters is that they OFFICIALLY DECLARE that Iran is being taken under their nuclear umbrella!
3/
🧵 The Eurasian Entente and the End of American Hegemony
In the years preceding the Ukraine War, the dominant view was that the China/Russia partnership was a tenuous marriage of convenience. In the face of much ridicule, I consistently argued against this perspective.
1/
I have long been convinced a Russia / China partnership is a perfectly logical and mutually beneficial course of action for the neighboring Asian superpowers — and that it contained all the elements for an enduring and harmonious relationship.
2/
Here in 2025, my perspective on the issue continues to be vindicated by events.
In fact, the cooperative anti-hegemonic movement in Asia has gained even greater momentum — particularly in light of Iran's increasing prominence as a third-pole in an expanding entente.
3/
I recommend the commentary linked below in relation to US/Russia "negotiations" to end the war in Ukraine.
In subsequent posts, I will link to the ESSENTIAL DOCUMENTATION of RUSSIA'S PEACE TERMS as clearly enunciated over the past several years.
1/
Essential Documentation
First is Vladimir Putin's landmark speech at the 2007 Munich Security Conference. I have linked below to a transcript which includes the essential Q&A session which followed the speech.
I have commented since February 23, 2022 on the question of the Banderite remnants of Ukraine prosecuting a protracted insurgency in the face of a decisive Russian military victory.
Although I've been posting for years in this forum about the obsolescence and vulnerability of the aircraft carrier, this was my first formal treatise on the topic — almost two years old now:
A search for “object of war” in my posting history will reveal how often I have reiterated this concept.
I recognized early on that the Russians were fighting a war of attrition whose paramount objective was to utterly annihilate the forces arrayed against them in Ukraine.
3/