Although NATO has already supplied Clown Prince Zelensky’s rogue regime with enough materiel, some $50 bn worth (not that anyone is counting), to arm a medium sized nation, there is overwhelming evidence that much of those weapons have found their
The IMF has its own strategy for such cases called “fragile and conflict-affected states”.
After more than ninety days of incessant Ukrainian propaganda, echoed mindlessly by a complicit western mainstream media that extolls the battlefield successes of the Ukrainian armed forces and the alleged incompetence of the Russian military, the
Carl von Clausewitz’s formula that war is the continuation of politics by other means is reinforced in the 21st century by geoeconomics, where supply chains, promising technologies and control over financial and other assets simply compel decision
For the future development of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, there are at least three scenarios and mixed options between them. First is a surrender of Ukrainian forces. It depends on the political decision of president Zelensky.
“In the first phase the enemy, collecting their best forces (...) will strike (...) I consider it inadvisable for our forces to go over to an offensive in the near
The question that is the title of this article was the one asked of the participants of a seminar that I had the honor to organize thirty years ago. It was 1994. Russia was struggling to emerge from the ruins of the Soviet empire.
Before I start, let me preface by stating that international law is a meaningless concept when it only applies to Washington’s enemies.
We Russians don't need Ukraine. Christ needs it. And that is why we are there.
Three options are being discussed at the top right now: