I get asked this all the time, so I am reposting my famous thread of all the top strategic thinkers - from Kissinger to Chomsky - who warned for years that war was coming if we pursued NATO expansion, yet had their advice ignored (which begs the question: why?).
The first one is George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy. As soon as 1998 he warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia".
Then there's Kissinger, in 2014 ⬇️ He warned that "to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country" and that it therefore needs a policy that is aimed at "reconciliation". He was also adamant that "Ukraine should not join NATO".
This is John Mearsheimer - probably the leading geopolitical scholar in the US today - in 2015: "The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked [...] What we're doing is in fact encouraging that outcome."
This is Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
This is Clinton's defense secretary William Perry explaining in his memoir that to him NATO enlargement is the cause of "the rupture in relations with Russia" and that in 1996 he was so opposed to it that "in the strength of my conviction, I considered resigning".
This is Noam Chomsky in 2015, saying that "the idea that Ukraine might join a Western military alliance would be quite unacceptable to any Russian leader" and that Ukraine's desire to join NATO "is not protecting Ukraine, it is threatening Ukraine with major war."
Stephen Cohen, a famed scholar of Russian studies, warned in 2014 that "if we move NATO forces toward Russia's borders [...] it's obviously gonna militarize the situation [and] Russia will not back off, this is existential"
Whole video worth watching:
This is famous Russian-American journalist Vladimir Pozner, in 2018, who says that NATO expansion in Ukraine is unacceptable to the Russian, that there has to be a compromise where "Ukraine, guaranteed, will not become a member of NATO."
This is famous economist Jeffrey Sachs writing right before war broke out a column in the FT warning that "NATO enlargement is utterly misguided and risky. True friends of Ukraine, and of global peace, should be calling for a US and NATO compromise with Russia."
This is CIA director Bill Burns in 2008: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for [Russia]" and "I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests"
This is Malcolm Fraser, 22nd prime minister of Australia, warning in 2014 that "the move east [by NATO is] provocative, unwise and a very clear signal to Russia". He adds that this leads to a "difficult and extraordinarily dangerous problem" theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
This is Paul Keating, 24th prime minister of Australia, writing in 1997 that expanding NATO is "an error which may rank in the end with the strategic miscalculations which prevented Germany from taking its full place in the international system [in early 20th]"
This is former US defense secretary Bob Gates in his 2015 memoirs: "Moving so quickly [to expand NATO] was a mistake. [...] Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching [and] an especially monumental provocation"
This is Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia, warning one year before the war that " [pushing] Ukraine into NATO [...] is stupid on every level."
He adds "if you want to start a war with Russia, that's the best way of doing it."
This is Pat Buchanan - assistant and special consultant to U.S. presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan - writing in his 1999 book A Republic, Not an Empire: "By moving NATO onto Russia's front porch, we have scheduled a twenty-first-century confrontation."
This 2008 Wikileaks cable by Bill Burns - now CIA Director - entitled "NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA'S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES" warns that "Russia [viewed] continued eastward expansion of NATO, particularly to Ukraine... as a potential military threat". wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/0…
This is British journalist @Itwitius, former Sky News foreign affairs editor, in his 2015 book Prisoners of Geography: for Russia "a pro-Western Ukraine with ambitions to join [EU or NATO] could not stand" and "could spark a war".
In 1997, 50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion.
This is George Beebe who used to be the CIA's top Russia analyst who in December 2021 linked Russia's actions in Ukraine directly to NATO expansion, explaining that Russia "feels threatened" and "inaction on [the Kremlin’s] part is risky"
This is Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato Institute's senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies, who wrote in a 1994 book that NATO expansion “would constitute a needless provocation of Russia.”
Today he adds "we are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance".
This is Frank Blackaby, former director of SIPRI, writing in 1996 that "any Russian Government will react, militarily as well as politically to [NATO’s expansion]" and that it makes "Europe drift [...] towards Cold War II".
This is legendary journalist @johnpilger who wrote this article in 2014.
He describes Ukraine as having become a "CIA theme park", a situation that he foresaw would lead to "a Nato-run guerrilla war" theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
This is Shiping Tang, one of China's foremost International Relations scholars, writing in 2009 that the "EU must put a stop to [the] U.S./NATO way of approaching European affairs", especially with regards to Ukraine, otherwise it'll "permanently divid[e] Europe".
This is Ukrainian presidential advisor Oleksiy Arestovych in 2015.
He says that if Ukraine continues down the path of joining NATO "it will prompt Russia to launch a large scale military operation [...] before we join NATO", "with a probability of 99.9%", likely "in 2021-2022".
Even legendary Soviet dissident Solzhenitsyn saw NATO expansion as "an effort to encircle Russia and destroy its sovereignty".
And of course just 3 days ago we now have NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg pretty much admitting that war started because of NATO expansion since he revealed Putin proposed not to invade Ukraine if NATO promised no more enlargement, which "of course we didn't sign"... He also said text blank that Russia "went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders".
There you go. This might be the war in history that's been the most foreseen by the most experts - from so many countries - for the longest time.
Incredibly, they were almost universally advocating a clear and feasible way to prevent the war: a commitment to no more NATO enlargement and a neutral Ukraine, like Finland (or Austria) was.
Yet we didn't do that. It really, really makes you wonder...
This also probably belongs here, the then Secretary General of NATO showing an understanding in 1990 that a move eastward was threatening to Russia, and saying that therefore NATO "was ready" not to do it...
In polite terms, he effectively says that the chips export controls on China were one of the most self-destructive decisions ever taken by the US government: x.com/Yuchenj_UW/sta…
He says it caused Nvidia to go "from 95% market share to 0%" in China, and that he "cannot imagine any policymaker thinking that’s a good idea. That whatever policy we implemented caused America to lose one of the largest markets in the world to 0%.”
In a separate interview (linked below) he effectively says that might have lost the US the AI race. Because, as he puts it, "winning" the AI race means that "80% of the world uses the American tech stack" and that, given that China on its own is "50% of AI research" and "30% of the technology market", then them not using the American tech stack means that by definition America is "forfeiting and conceding" the AI race.
In that separate interview he also completely ridicules the narrative - used by the US to justify the export controls - that they were to prevent "dual use" of advanced Western chips for military purposes by China, saying that "no government, surely the Chinese government, is going to be building their defense on Western technology nor does the Pentagon use Chinese chips to build our national security."
So to sum up: in a foolish attempt to slow China's AI development, not only did the US lose its largest market, they may have lost the AI race itself.
The Nobel "Peace" Prize, being its usual mockery of itself. Basically a reward for the most rabid defendents of a western liberal order, "peace" being a distant afterthought. x.com/NobelPrize/sta…
The ideological aspect is crystal clear, see 👇 "Democracy is a precondition for lasting peace"
By which they mean liberal democracy, of course. And it couldn't be more false: the countries that have waged the most wars, by far, over the past few decades were liberal democracies (the US first and foremost).
Ok, I looked into this because sometimes claims that "China invents Y" can be somewhat exaggerated. But this is real, and completely insane.
This technology called "Bone 02" (inspired by the well-known "502 glue" in China) has been developed for the past 9 years by a team of orthopedic surgeons in Zhejiang province. The team leads are Professor Fan Shunwu (范顺武, Director of the Orthopedics Department at Zhejiang University) and Lin Xianfeng (researchgate.net/profile/Xianfe…).
It's inspired by oysters because the researchers noticed their extraordinary ability to firmly attach themselves in harsh underwater environment by secreting a special adhesive known as bio-cement, which creates a strong chemical interaction with surfaces and hardens quickly.
The properties of the glue are almost miraculous (sources: news.cn/20250910/1df93… and news.ifeng.com/c/8mVMq4PBdmJ):
- Nearly instant adhesion in blood-soaked wet physiological environments (it just takes 2-3 minutes)
- Extremely strong adhesive properties (bonding tensile force of over 400 pounds - over 181 kg)
- Complete biodegradability that naturally absorbs after about 6 months as the bone heals (no need for secondary surgery previously required in conventional treatments)
- Vast reduction of infection risks related to the traditional metal plates and screws normally needed for bone surgery
- Minimally invasive and rapid surgery since you just need a small opening large enough to apply the glue (as opposed to a complex surgery attaching metal fixations)
This glue could be especially useful for fractures with small bone fragments which are very difficult to fix with metal plates and screws.
The glue has already undergone a proper "prospective, multicenter, blinded, randomized, parallel-controlled, non-inferiority clinical trial" with over 150 patients (c.m.163.com/news/a/K95S9C0…). They've announced positive results - the glue "achieved seamless bonding of all fracture fragments" - and will soon publish the peer-reviewed paper in an orthopedics journal detailing full trial data.
They've launched a company for the product called 源囊生物 (Yuannang Bio) which just raised 2 weeks ago RMB100 million in Series A financing (bydrug.pharmcube.com/news/detail/ef…).
They could also do:
- "Yes, China's bone glue works, but at what cost?" (a classic)
- "China's bone glue is part of its biological warfare on the West"
- "Congress demands investigation into 'Dual-Use' nature of Chinese oyster technology"
- "Did China just weaponize oysters?"
- "Oysters are a Western mollusk: experts say China's bone glue violates the Convention on the Law of the Sea"
- "Oysters evolved in Europe 60 million years ago -here's how China stole their essence"
Pretty good too 👇😅
Or simply "China's bone glue: a sign of looming war with Taiwan" 😅
The Guardian isn't even trying anymore, just going for basic "darkness v light" propaganda, including the holy halo around the head of the pro-EU politician 😅
The story (theguardian.com/world/2025/sep…) focuses entirely on supposed "Kremlin interference" but doesn't as much as mention that:
- a) the current pro-EU government just barred two pro-Russian political parties just 2 days before the elections (and one day before this article was written)
- b) that Moldova literally has its elections supervised by the EU on the ground, including (according to Kaja Kallas: x.com/RnaudBertrand/…) a "specialist team... to address illicit financing around the elections" and "a hybrid rapid response team [fighting] against the foreign interference"
So the side of the "light" is literally banning opposition parties at the last minute, and having foreign teams actively helping them shape electoral outcomes on the ground.
And they make the story all about "Russian interference". This isn't even remotely journalism, this is just stenographing for one side.
And then there's this 👇 Only 2 polling stations opened in the whole of Russia for Moldovans who live there to vote, vs 301 in the EU
I have to say, there's something immensely ironic about the Dalai Lama arguing his reincarnation should be determined by a tax-exempt Swiss foundation incorporated in Zurich (dalailamafoundation.org/who-we-are/the…), while Beijing insists on maintaining the traditional centuries-old Golden Urn selection process.
And the even bigger irony is that everyone will doubtlessly denounce China for "destroying Tibetan traditions and culture" for doing so.