미어쇠이머의 비됴와 비교해 보시기 바랍니다.
미어쇠이머가 말 하는 러시아의 목표는 .
지금 점령하고 잇는 4개 지역 서쪽으로 또 다른 4개 지역(오셋사, 키이우 포함) 을 추가 점령하고(우크라인 국토의 46%)
우크라인을 기능하지 못하는 잔존국으로 만드려고 한다....고 보앗습니다...
이런 주장은 머쉬이머의 독자적인 주장도 아니고...이미 러시아 쪽에서 흘러 나온 정보에 기본한 것입니다.
그들은 우크리인인들의 러시아에 대한 민족적 반감을 잘 알고 잇고...우크라인 전체를 점령하는 짓 따윈 처음 부터 러시아의
목표가 아니엇다는 것인데....몰론 러시아의 생각되로 전쟁이 진행 될지는 두고 봐야 합니다.
양국의 평화회담에 대해서도 매우 부정적입니다.
러시아 점령지에 대한 양국의 요구의 양보할 수 없는 대립
우크라인의 중립국화의 불 가능성
양쪽의 극단적인 민족주의
러시아의 회담에 대한 불신(민스크 회담에서 속은 경험 )
등을 이유로 들엇습니다..
물론 미래의 일은 신도 모릅니다.....상황의 변화에 따라 예측은 항상 빛나갑니다.
지금까지 진행되어온 것을 되 돌아 보앗을때 한가지는 분명하게 알 수 잇습니다.
기존 주류 언론의 보도가 다 거짓말 이엇다는 것인데
이들의 이런 보도 관행이 앞으로라고 달라질 것이라곤 눈꼽 만큼도 생각할 수 없고
우리는 열씸히 열씸히 그들의 피리소리에 맞춰 춤사위질이나 처 하던지
답답하면 대안 언론을 뒤저 볼 수 밖에 없습니다.
갈보가 처녀이기를 바란다면.......그 놈이 미친놈이겟지요..
두고 보지요....우크라인에서 얼마나 뽑아 처 먹을 수 잇는지...
아래에 글 두개를 붙혓습니다.
내용은 비슷하지만 표현은 전혀 다릅니다.
트럼프를 비롯한 현재 유력한 공화당 후보 누구도 우크라인 전쟁에 찬성하고 잇지 않습니다.
민주당 내에서도 우크라인 전쟁에 대한 심각한 반대가 잇습니다...눈 가리고 아웅 하는 짓 그만 하자는 것이지요.
권력이 바뀐다면 우크라인 전쟁은 어떤형태던 변화할 수 밖에 없습니다....그런데 더 고민이 되는 것은
이것이 비단 우크라인의 패전으로만 끝나지 않는 문제라는 것이지요.
지금과 같은 형태의 nato는 더 이상 계속될 수 없다는 것인데.............. 읽어 보시기 바랍니다.
Here's why Ukraine’s defeat could mean the end of NATO in its current form
The bloc has too much riding on Kiev’s highly-unlikely success, and that’s why it’s doing all it can to prolong the conflict
By Chay Bowes, journalist and geopolitical analyst, MA in Strategic Studies, RT correspondent
As the West’s proxy war in Ukraine slips inexorably towards utter failure, the neocons behind the debacle are faced with dwindling avenues of retreat.
Early confidence that Russia, in its current form, would collapse under the pressure of the harshest sanctions regime in history failed to materialize. Early Russian miscalculations on the battlefield were not followed by a military meltdown, but by a pragmatic display of strategic adaptability, which is begrudgingly admired in the military war rooms of the West. The Russian army, far from falling apart, has steeled itself into making bold decisions to retreat when prudent and advance when required, both of which have proven devastating for their Ukrainian opponents.((여기에 푸틴은 미친개다...러시아 군이 한쌀짜리 우쿠라인 여자 아이를 강간햇다 따위 ......할 수 잇는 모든말을 다 쏟아 부엇습니다.......1년반이 지난 지금 이들의 말 중에 진실인 것이 무엇입니까??)) It follows that, as the Western political elites that cultivated this conflict peer into another winter of political, military, and potentially economic discontent, it is now that we potentially face the most dangerous period in Europe since the outbreak of WWII.
The catalyst for a wider war in Europe isn’t, in fact, a limited conflict in Ukraine in itself, one that started in 2014 and, notably, had been largely ignored by Western powers for almost a decade. The real issue is that NATO, which is currently engaged in a proxy War with Russia, is facing a ‘damned if you do and damned if you don’t’ scenario regarding its growing military involvement in Ukraine. If the US-led bloc escalates further as defeat looms, it could likely lead to direct confrontation with Russia. If it doesn’t, its proxy will collapse and leave Russia victorious, a fate once utterly unthinkable in Brussels, Washington, and London, but now becoming a nightmarish reality.
Such a defeat would be devastating and potentially terminal for the prestige and reputation of the whole NATO brand. After all, despite the Soviet Union having long ceased to exist, the bloc still markets itself as an indispensable bulwark against imagined Russian expansionism. In the event of an increasingly likely Ukrainian defeat, that ‘essential partner’ in ‘countering Russia’ will have been proven utterly impotent and largely irrelevant. More cynically, the vast US arms industry would also be denied a huge and lucrative market. So, how does a multi billion-dollar machine that has prophesied absolute victory against Russia even begin to contemplate defeat? And how do senior EU bureaucrats like Ursula Von der Leyen climb down from their quasi-religious devotion to the ‘cause’ of utterly defeating Russia, which she has shamelessly evangelized for over a year and a half? Lastly, how does the American administration, which has gone politically, morally, and economically ‘all in’ against Russia in Ukraine, contemplate what amounts to an increasingly inevitable European version of Afghanistan 2.0?
They will need to do two things: Firstly, find someone to blame for their defeat and secondly, find a new enemy to deflect public opinion onto.
The ‘someone to blame’ will be quite easy to identify – the narrative will be flush with attacks on states like Hungary, China, and to some extent India, who will be accused of "undermining the unified effort needed to isolate and defeat Russia."
Blaming Ukraine itself will also be central to this narrative. Western media will insure it’s singled out as incapable of ‘taking the medicine’ proffered by NATO and therefore suffering the consequences, not listening to Western military advice, failing to utilize Western aid correctly and, of course – given that little has been done by Zelensky to tackle the endemic corruption in Ukraine – this fact will be easily weaponized against him and used to lubricate a slick narrative of ‘we tried to help them, but they simply couldn’t be saved from themselves’.
The ‘shift focus to another enemy’ narrative is the simplest and most obvious – that will be China. NATO is already trying to expand its influence in Asia, including via a planned ‘liaison office’ in Japan. The ‘China is the real threat’ narrative is bubbling steadily to the surface in Western media.
And, most worryingly, should Western powers fail to make their case for ‘plausible deniability’ around the culpability for this war, there is always the option of further escalating it. Such an escalation could rapidly lead to direct confrontation between NATO and Russia, an outcome no lucid observer on either side of the debate could or should be contemplating. The problem is, rational assessment and negotiation seem to have become so rare in Washington and Kiev that a devastating escalation could, quite remarkably, be considered an option by the deluded neocon think-tank advisers wielding disproportionate influence over an increasingly desperate political class in Washington and Brussels. In the event that NATO does indeed sanction a direct intervention into Ukraine, it will, of course, be justified as a ‘peacekeeping’ or humanitarian intervention by Polish or Romanian troops, but the categorization of the ‘mission’ will become gloriously irrelevant when the first clashes with Russian forces occur, followed by a potentially rapid spiral into all-out war between Russia and NATO.
It could be argued that the process to disassociate from Ukraine has already started, beginning with the embarrassment Zelensky faced at the recent NATO summit and progressing with the open spats between Western ‘partners’ over whether to give Ukraine ever deadlier weapons to essentially insure its self-destruction.
From here on out one thing is abundantly clear, nothing will happen by accident when it comes to the EU and NATO's interaction with the Zelensky regime. Whatever comes next may need to be spun both ways, to either pull out or to escalate. A case in point is the blame game being openly acted out around the obvious failure of Ukraine’s counteroffensive, with open finger-pointing in the Western media by Ukrainian officials like the ambassador to Germany, Aleksey Makeev. Kiev’s top man in Germany recently blamed the West for the bloody failure of the ill-fated project, suggesting it was solely due to European and American delays in shipping weapons and cash to Kiev. According to the ambassador, it was this Western failure that apparently allowed the Russians to build their defenses in eastern Ukraine, where tens of thousands of unfortunate Ukrainian conscripts have met their fate in the past three months.
In the real world, the counteroffensive, which has now become a slow-motion calamity, had been telegraphed to the Russians and the wider world for almost a year and will surely be recalled as one of the greatest military misadventures in history. The fact that the Ukrainian regime openly advertised its intentions, even loudly pointing out the avenue of assault and strategic goals, is conveniently ignored by the likes of Makeev. It now seems apparent that Kiev believed that its overt saber-rattling would stimulate faster and larger weapons shipments from its increasingly concerned partners – it didn’t, and by the time those very same sponsors’ patience ran out with Kiev’s lack of progress on the battlefield, it was glaringly obvious any offensive against long-prepared Russian defenses was doomed to fail. Yet, because of Kiev’s PR need and demands from Western political elites, the counteroffensive began, wiping out entire battalions of Ukrainian troops and burning through a huge portion of the Western heavy weapons previously provided.
The situation evokes a kind of tragic romantic folly, with Ukraine desperate to woo NATO and the EU to the point of suicide, NATO and the EU playing the aloof lover; never having really considered marriage but willing to allow its admirer to throw itself onto the spears of the real object of their attention – Russia. Of course, the real concern now preoccupying the EU-NATO cabal is how to survive this tawdry affair and move on. While the hapless Jens Stoltenberg would have us believe NATO has never been stronger, the reality is far less rosy for the ‘defensive alliance’ that has bombed its way across Europe and the Middle East, and now seeks to expand to the Pacific. The reality is that the Ukraine conflict could destroy NATO. It has become something of a modern day League of Nations, adept at admonishing small fish, but utterly incapable of standing toe to toe with any peer adversary, a failed political institution, posing as a military alliance, that in reality would collapse in the face of a direct challenge from either Russia or China. Of course, it seems that NATO has also willfully fallen under the spell of its own propaganda.
The big question now is whether the bloc would in reality contemplate a direct confrontation with Russia in Ukraine? Or will the Western political elites who built the scaffold the Ukrainian conflict is now blazing on choose to reverse through blame or escalate through desperation?
One thing is indisputable: The fate of NATO and its credibility as a ‘defensive alliance’ is irrevocably intertwined with the outcome of the Ukrainian conflict, yet because NATO is, in reality, a political rather than military institution, these crucial issues will never be debated openly, as the answers would be akin to a priest announcing the nonexistence of God from the pulpit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
아래는 어트랜틱 에서 뽑은 것입니다..
우리로 치면 조선일보라고는 할 수 없고 중앙일보 정도로 볼 수 잇는 언론이고...
따라서 수구 꼴통들이라도 안심하고 읽을 수 잇는 글입니다.
이들의 사고가 무엇이고 어떤식으로 접근을 하는지 들여다 보시기 바랍니다.
이들의 생각을 고대로 해석하여 한국에서 성서 처럼 씨불리는 것들이 이른바 보수라는 것들인데
mz 젊은 미친개들이 이런 주장에 미처 환장하는 것은 ....우연이 아니라고 햇지요??
Europe and the United States are on the verge of the most momentous conscious uncoupling in international relations in decades. Since 1949, NATO has been the one constant in world security. Initially an alliance among the United States, Canada, and 10 countries in Western Europe, NATO won the Cold War and has since expanded to include almost all of Europe. It has been the single most successful security grouping in modern global history. It also might collapse by 2025.
The cause of this collapse would be the profound difference in outlook between the Republican Party’s populist wing—which is led by Donald Trump but now clearly makes up the majority of the GOP—and the existential security concerns of much of Europe. The immediate catalyst for the collapse would be the war in Ukraine. When the dominant faction within one of the two major American political parties can’t see the point in helping a democracy-minded country fight off Russian invaders(에휴...아직도 이런 개 소리를 처 합니다), that suggests that the center of the political spectrum has shifted in ways that will render the U.S. a less reliable ally to Europe. The latter should prepare accordingly.
The past few weeks have revealed that Trump’s pro-Russian, anti-NATO outlook isn’t just a brief interlude in Republican politics; suspicion of American involvement in supporting Ukraine is now the consensus of the party’s populist heart. During last week’s GOP presidential debate, Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy—the two candidates most intent on appealing to the party’s new Trumpist base—both argued against more aid for Ukraine. DeSantis did so softly, by vowing to make any more aid conditional on greater European assistance and saying he’d rather send troops to the U.S.-Mexico border. Ramaswamy was more strident: He described the current situation as “disastrous” and called for a complete and immediate cessation of U.S. support for Ukraine. Ramaswamy later went even further, basically saying that Ukraine should be cut up; Vladimir Putin would get to keep a large part of the country. Trump did not take part in the debate, but he has previously downplayed America’s interest in an Ukrainian victory and has seemed to favor territorial concessions by Ukraine to Russia. He, DeSantis, and Ramaswamy are all playing to the same voters—who, polls suggest, make up about three-quarters of the Republican electorate.
Another bellwether is the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank(우리로 치면 삼성경제연구소 정도로 보면 됩니다) that has played an outsize role in GOP policy circles since the Reagan years. Before Russia launched its full-scale invasion, in February 2022, Heritage had been on the hawkish wing of the Republican Party, even publishing a call for Ukraine to be accepted into NATO. More recently, Heritage officials have called for halting aid until the Biden administration produces a plan to end the war—which is an impossible goal unless Russia agrees. Demagogues on the right(우리로 치면 수구 꼴통들) are taking Putin’s side even more overtly. The talk-show host Tucker Carlson, for instance, in a August address in Budapest, maintained that anti-Christian bias motivated American opposition to Russia.
Such claims are ridiculous, not least because Russia is one of the least religious societies on Earth. But the growing sentiment on the American right against supporting Ukraine represents an extraordinary challenge to the future of NATO. European states have been moving in the opposite direction: As evidence mounts of Russian atrocities in Ukraine, and Russia shows itself willing to commit almost any crime in its desire to seize the territory (and people) of an independent, internationally recognized country next door, many European countries (particularly many of those close to Russia) have come to see this war as one that directly challenges their future. If Putin were to keep large pieces of Ukraine, that outcome would represent not peace, but a form of perma-war, in which a revanchist Russia would have established its ability to seize the land of its neighbors.((가장 전형적인 미국의 수구 꼴통들의 논리입니다....한국의 수구꼴통들의 중국이나 러시아에 대한 시각과 정확하게 일치 합니다))
Even if Joe Biden wins reelection, Republican control of the House, Senate, or both could substantially weaken U.S. support for the Ukrainian effort. And if Trump or one of his imitators wins the presidency in November 2024, Europe could find itself faced with a new American administration that will halt all support for Ukraine.
Such a move would make the U.S. itself an obstacle to a long-term free and stable Europe. It would split the Atlantic alliance, and European states have not prepared themselves for that possibility.
The reality is that, for many years, Europe has largely slipstreamed behind the U.S. on security matters. This has provided real benefits to the U.S., by solidifying American leadership in the world’s most important strategic grouping while allowing European states to spend far less on defense than they would otherwise have to. The differential also means that Europe, on its own, lacks the breadth and depth of U.S. military capabilities.
The Western aid given to Ukraine highlights the difference between the two sides. Over the past year, leaders in Europe have been more insistent than Washington about the need to provide powerful, advanced equipment to Kyiv, but their reliance on European-made systems has limited their ability to deliver. The U.K. and France have supplied long-range cruise missiles—known as Storm Shadow in Britain and SCALP in France—that they jointly developed, but the two countries have substantially less equipment to spare than the U.S. does. Although the greatest amount of military aid has come from the U.S., the Biden administration has slow-walked the transfer of more advanced material such as Abrams tanks (which have yet to appear on the battlefield in Ukraine), F-16 fighter jets (which won’t show up until 2024), and Army Tactical Missile Systems equipment (for which the administration continues to make spurious arguments for withholding).
What leaders in Europe have to face, as a pro-Russia, anti-Ukraine position solidifies in the Republican Party, is the prospect of having to do most of the heavy lifting to help Ukraine win the war. That is no small task. Europe would have to expand its manufacturing capacities both for ammunition and other nuts-and-bolts military needs and for the more advanced systems, such as long-range missiles, that it would have to supply on its own.
If the United States simply abandons Ukraine a year and a half from now, there is no way whatsoever that Europe could make up for the loss of aid. But European governments would have to come up with ways to ameliorate that withdrawal. This would require tact and skill—and the preparations would have to start soon. European military officials need to quietly ask their Ukrainian counterparts what the latter would need that the former could supply if American assistance wanes, and then start figuring out how to ramp up production. Such planning would also allow European militaries to start thinking about how they, alone, could defend Europe against Russian aggression.((계속해서 러시아의 위협을 언급합니다....냉전 시대의 소련의 위협의 연속입니다...러시아는 유럽의 위협을 유럽은 러시아의 위협을 서도 전략적으로 이용합니다...그런데 러시아의 위협이 실제한 것인가???......여기에 대해서는 당연히 반론이 잇지요)) For years, military planners on the continent have debated whether, in the interest of maximizing overall security, individual European nations should specialize their military operations; instead of most states operating a small army, navy, and air force of their own, each would concentrate on the roles that best fit its location, population, and production base, and then rely on other states with complementary capacities. A continent-wide effort to accelerate weapons production for Ukraine would force the question.
Without committing itself to such comprehensive military planning, Europe could also find itself in an internal diplomatic crisis. Countries in the east (such as Poland and Romania) and North (such as the Baltic and Scandinavian nations) are desperate to see Russia defeated. But if Europe fails to embark soon on a unified, collective military-production plan, countries in the west and south that feel less threatened by Russian aggression might be inclined to follow the lead of a new American administration that backs away from Ukraine and tries to cut a deal with Russia. The result could be a legacy of bitterness and distrust at best, and a permanent fracturing of European cooperation at worst.((이는 단지 우크라인 사태에 대한 안보적인 인식의 차이만 본 것입니다...경제적 사회적 측면까지 들어 가면 더욱 복잡해 집니다.......유럽은 본래 그런 국가들이 모여 잇는 곳입니다))
Hopefully these scenarios won’t materialize. The election of a pro-NATO and pro-Ukraine U.S. president in 2024 should be enough to see Ukraine through to a military victory and peace deal (which would involve Ukraine’s admission into NATO), leading to security on the continent. But that possibility doesn’t absolve European leaders of the obligation to plan for an alternate reality in which an American administration scuttles NATO and seeks a rapprochement with Putin, despite Russia’s genocidal crimes against a European state. If the Europeans don’t start planning for the worst-case scenario, they will have no one to blame but themselves.
이런 시나리오들이 실현되지 않기를 바란다. 2024 년 선거에서 친 NATO와 친 우크라이나 대통령을 선출하는 것은 우크라이나가 군사적 승리와 평화 협정을 맺을 수 있게 하고(우크라이나가 나토에 입국하는 것을 포함한다). 유럽대륙의 안보로 이어질 것이다고 예상할 수 잇다. 그러나 그런 가능성이, 한 유럽 국가에 대한 러시아의 대량 학살 범죄에도 불구하고, 미국 행정부가 나토를 비난하고 푸틴 대통령과의 화해를 모색하는 대안적인 현실에 대한 준비를 할 의무를 유럽 지도자들에게 면제하지 않는다. 유럽인들이 최악의 시나리오에 대한 계획하기 시작하지 않는다면, 그들 자신 외에는 아무도 비난할 사람이 없을 것이다.