Hitler spent time watching films of the way the British controlled the population of India with relatively few troops. He intended to use the same methods to maintain control in the countries which fell under the control of the Reich. That is a historical fact.
Sure, but Putin is under no delusions he could hold Ukraine against their will. And it doesn't really make sense to do so. He has a few objectives: Full autonomy for (and potentially eventual annexation of) the Donbas The complete demilitarisation of Ukraine Permanent guarantees Ukraine will not join NATO The deposition of the current Ukrainian government, and replacing them with a puppet government Some vague ideas around "de-nazification" He has no interest in annexing Ukraine into Russia proper. Or rather, he has no real delusions about his ability to do so, I assume he would if he could.
Poutine... er, I mean Putin ... is doing this the old-school way. Whereas the US goes into a place with 'shock and awe,' takes out the infrastructure first, and winds up spending billions to put stuff back together afterward, Putin is conducting battle the way it used to be done in times past. He's encircling Ukraine, trying to avoid causing great damage or civilian casualties, and expecting that in time Ukraine's resources will dry up so they'll have to accept terms. It takes longer to win that way, but historically speaking it's often been effective. He's only sent in about 30% of his forces, and they aren't the best of his forces either. He has held back his best in case NATO gets aggressive with Russia militarily. Putin is a strategist, a chess player type so to speak. I don't think Putin sees himself ruling the world or anything like that, but the Russian psyche feels the need for a safety buffer along that border; they have an ingrained feeling of vulnerability since WWII. I suspect Putin's motivation has more to do with protecting his homeland than empire-building. I'm not defending his reasoning or saying the motivation is truly justified, just making observations. I think it's erroneous to paint him as a tyrant or a "Hitler".
I think some Hitler analogies are fair. He certainly runs the Hitler playbook in terms of deceit. He fabricates an emergency, mobilises on the border while denying he has any intention to invade, and then invades anyway. He did it in 2008, 2014 and again now. He doesn't have the same end ambitions, but he certainly mimics the strategy. It's why if he succeeds in this endeavour he won't be done. He'll be looking to puppet Georgia and this whole 6-8 year cycle will continue. No different from Hitler and Czechoslovakia. He wants a border of puppets giving him insulation against NATO, which might seem fine in the abstract, but is not fine when it comes at the trade off of removing the autonomy and freedom to control their own destinies of tens of millions of people. God forbid what happens if Sweden and Finland are serious about NATO talks and not just posturing for a de-escalation in Ukraine.
Since you mentioned being curious, I'll share a source with you. There is reason to believe that the wealthy elites in the west have conspired and contrived for several decades to bring Russia under their control.
Oh dear. You don’t actually believe this guy has a computer that can tell you the future do you? If he can predict complex events like wars, why did he need to run a Ponzi scheme and defraud people of hundreds of millions of dollars? This is my point. I cannot fathom what is persuasive about this inane rambling in barely high school level English. Why are you skeptical of consensus beliefs reviewed and scrutinised by the entire world, but not skeptical of this guys truly outrageous claims? Does it not flag you as odd that this guy thinks that Europe wanted to buy natural gas from Iran - a country embargoed by the EU - and that for some reason Russia was in support of losing their only lever of power over Europe because for some reason they would control it? I took a very quick browse through his nutter articles and it seems like every major event of the past two decades can be linked to Hillary Clinton, and that he and the bank he used to defraud people were at the centre of all of it being planned in the 90s. Doesn’t that strike you as oddly convenient?
And should you have taken Hitler at his word when he made a peace treaty with Russia, or said he wouldn't invade Poland? Well, I am glad you finally admit that Putin is a murderous tyrant. Your posts haven't indicated this before now. I apologise if you really mean this. can I take you at your word?
So, the man types too fast and doesn't proofread his blog posts before he uploads them. Big deal. Successful multi-millionaires can be like that. Do you have any hard evidence (like a conviction record, perhaps) concerning the scurrilous accusation his detractors utilize to discredit him? I don't see where Armstrong wrote that "Europe wanted to buy natural gas from Iran." He said that Iran would like to sell their gas to Europe, and that Russia was in favor of it (Russia and Iran are fairly friendly); Russia did not want Qatar to sell petroleum to Europe; this was backed by the US and would reduce Russia's revenues. I think your "very quick browse" through the article was too hasty. This man has high-level contacts all over the globe, he's been consulted by US presidents and other national leaders, and yes he did create a computer program stuffed with as much data as possible (some of it very ancient data) which makes general forecasts without emotional bias based on observed cyclical patterns of many things (including human nature).
I am not sure that we help the situation by declaring Putin a 'murderous tyrant', whilst I can see why he might deserve the epiphet. Putin's public life of late has been dovoted to making Russia Great Again. He turns 70 in October, and plans to rule till possibly 2036, when he will be 84. I suspect he will not be president that long, however some older male leader have problems letting go of their position. Frankly at the age of 70 I have little interest in running anything. Putin's view of Russia as Great is shaped by the Stalinst Regeim of the USSR, where authority was weilded with boot and rifle, and diplomacy happened when you sent in a gun boat. His view that Ukraine was formed by the USSR is a shorty view of history, and I think that the longer view of history might see Russia created from the steppes of Ukraine, and it ios certainly the heartland of Russian Orthodoxy. The fear of NATO incursion into Russian space which seems to be part of his concern seems at least a little overstated. It seems that when he wanted the Crimea, he got it, so he thougfht I might as well have the Eastern provinces, as they are pretty Russian anyway, oh well maybe I should just take all of Ukraine, and then if I have to compromise I will given them back Western Ukraine. I suspect he had not counted of the combined resolve to the West to sanction Russia in a way that will hurt them economically. There is a fair chance that the Black Sea project won;t go ahead, and it may take quite a whole to get Russia back into the SWIFT system. This may be where he has miscalculated. Though I also suspect he over imagined the ease with which he would take Ukraine, and underestiumated the resolve of the Ukranian people. I strongly suspect that Zellenskyy rising to power without support of the oligarchs, but rather 73% clear support for his presidency is part of the real problem. He is not a lap dog of the Russians, nor likely to become one. Historically it was thought he leaned in a Russian direction, however if you watch any of 'the Servant of the people' (which can be seen on Youtube, it seems clear that he saw a future for an independent Ukraine, and that is what he sold to the poeple of Ukraine. Zellenskyy has in this conflict acted as a true and valiant leader, and has certinly earned my respect. Putin and Patriarch Kirril referring to Ukrainians as Nazis, is no better than Trump referring to Mexicans in disparaging terms. These useless generalisations are simply incendary and not helpful. And army of 120,000 with tanks and missiles, not to mention air support is not a Peace Keeping Force. Russia way well win the battle for the Ukraine, but ultimately they will loose the war, and at great cost.
First google result "Martin A. Armstrong, the financial adviser who has spent seven years in jail on a contempt-of-court charge, was sentenced yesterday to five years in prison for running what prosecutors said was a $3 billion Ponzi scheme." He is not successful. He became destitute. He was successful, then it turned out he had no idea how to invest, and was running a ponzi scheme to make it out like he was some sort of oracle. Now he's probably a millionaire again off the back of what I assume is a popular blog, some conspiracy theory books, and subscription con. He's either a con-man or unhealthy. "You then must look at the whole Syria nonsense where the evil Putin stepped in. It was just one year after Qatar’s proposal to run a pipeline to Europe to knock out Russia from supplying gas to Europe in the plot to undermine the Russian economy. This is when Assad began negotiations for another pipeline plan with Iran, which would carry Iranian gas to Europe across Iraq and Syria." This is nonsense. Iran would be under no delusions the EU would lift their trade embargo, why would they build a pipeline that wouldn't even make it through Turkey? Presumably this is a poorly informed take on the "Friendship pipeline", which was a real gas pipeline that was opposed by Russia because it would destroy Russia's hold over Europe. The West supported the friendship pipeline, and Russia opposed it. This is what provoked Russia to build a stronger relationship with Syria and bring them into their sphere of influence - so they could block this and future projects that threaten their hold over Europe's energy grid. The pipeline was cancelled when Iran was sanctioned for their weapons program. The Qatar-Turkey pipeline came many years later, not before, and was blocked by Syria on the basis that "it wished to protect the economic interests of its close ally, Russia". This was the product of years of clever diplomacy by Putin - and is exactly what he would do today if sanctions were lifted from Iran and the Friendship pipeline was revisited. What he means by the "Syria nonsense" is anyone's guess. Is he implying the US set ISIS on Syria to stop a gas pipeline coming from Iran, that can't actually sell gas to Europe, that Russia wanted even though that would mean Europe is no longer beholden to Russia? Even though by the time he is suggesting this happened the US already had control of Iraq, and Iran can't get a pipeline to Syria without first going through Iraq anyway? Lunacy. Says him and nobody else. With respect, how can you be skeptical of COVID, but not skeptical this guy has a fortune telling machine with only a few sporadic successful predictions in the 80s made by hundreds of other experts, and often catastrophic embarrassments in the modern day e.g. A 2015 European Sovereign Debt Crisis that would be the greatest economic disaster in 300 years [Primary Source 1] [More Detailed Third-Party Source 2]. My original question was on why you find conspiracy theories persuasive, not which ones you find persuasive. Although this guy is new to me (mostly, I think I've been exposed to some of his other predictions before though), I'm across all the big conspiracy theories, what I don't understand is why people buy into them. It seems to me the same people who parrot "don't believe everything you see on the internet" to refute, sometimes quite validly, mainstream sources don't apply their own standards to far more dubious sources.
I did not know I had to admit the obvious to you. I mean the guy kills critics of his in foreign countries with nerve agents but the fact still stands that it is useless to talk seriously about this issue with people who don't study it and who are in the midst of freaking out over current world affairs
The fear of NATO incursion into Russian space which seems to be part of his concern seems at least a little overstated. It seems that when he wanted the Crimea, he got it, so he thougfht I might as well have the Eastern provinces, as they are pretty Russian anyway, oh well maybe I should just take all of Ukraine, and then if I have to compromise I will given them back Western Ukraine........ You forget Georgia. Georgia was flirting with the west to much for his liking and he went in there. The fear of encirclement from the West is strong with him and Russia
Good catch. I was under the impression that he'd only been jailed for contempt of court for 7 years and that was all.
He wasn't only impressed by us. His ideal would've been, first, for the UK to join him in his efforts. He almost certainly knew we wouldn't. Therefore, his second preference was for Britain to just let him get on with it. After all he was taking countries we'd often been at war with in the past so why should we care. In the first he was rational knowing we'd never join him. In the second he was delusional to think we'd stand by and let him roll across Europe. May be Hitler didn't know his history. He should've read what happened to Napoleon.
Inevitable. The first casualty of war is TRUTH. Putin definitely started it though. Both the WAR on Ukraine and the war on TRUTH.
The war on truth began in the Garden, when the serpent deceived Eve. The "father of lies" never quits.