Are invaders typically defeated from within?

#1
confused2 Offline
Think Putin.
I don't know enough to answer the question myself.
Defeat from within would result in wars that fizzle out. America v. Vietnam might be a good example but I suspect Putin is better at using nationalism than a more western democracy.
Reply
#2
Kornee Offline
(Jun 19, 2022 01:41 PM)confused2 Wrote: Think Putin.
I don't know enough to answer the question myself.
Defeat from within would result in wars that fizzle out. America v. Vietnam might be a good example but I suspect Putin is better at using nationalism than a more western democracy.
Palace coup - imo guaranteed Rothschild/Soros Globalists are incessantly working towards that end. Grand Chessboard Eurasia land-grab moves are done behind closed doors.
Some here believe what you see and hear on MSM outlets is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So elp me gawd.
Or maybe not. For instance, one dissident opinion:
https://original.antiwar.com/rick_sterli...hessboard/
Reply
#3
C C Offline
(Jun 19, 2022 01:41 PM)confused2 Wrote: Think Putin.
I don't know enough to answer the question myself.
Defeat from within would result in wars that fizzle out. America v. Vietnam might be a good example but I suspect Putin is better at using nationalism than a more western democracy.


Without a genuinely free press and liberty to engage in public activism slash criticism, citizens can't place pressure on an authoritarian government; and an unarmed population has no means to overthrow it. Elections obviously don't serve the task when there's a one-party system, military junta, solid oligarchy, dictatorship, etc -- including superficial, corrupt democracies with perpetually rigged elections.

The successful communist revolutions of the 20th century had weapon-equipped crusaders (i.e., Tsarist Russia did not take guns away from citizens, only restricted their use for "fun"). In contrast, the "peaceful" Marxist insurrections in various countries failed because the unarmed revolutionaries were easily crushed by the "capitalist" regimes.

Once in power, the communist rulers stripped the proles of arms, so the same could not be done to them at a future date. That's why Chinese citizens are also an impotent factor in deciding or readily changing anything about their government. The video clip here provides a melodramatic emphasis on that fact: China and traditional leftism triumph over Muslim "radicals".

"The Bolshevik Revolution put an end to the free circulation of guns among the general public. The leaders of the uprising knew only too well what the masses were capable of, especially if armed up to the teeth, and moved to monopolize gun ownership. In 1918 the Bolsheviks initiated a large scale confiscation of civilian firearms, outlawing their possession and threatening up to 10 years in prison for concealing a gun.

[...] It was only a matter of time before Russia became an almost totally gun-free nation. Some people believed Russians would regain their right to own guns after the collapse of the Soviet Union but despite firearms becoming available on the black market during the 90s, the new government did not risk liberalizing the gun market.
" https://www.rbth.com/history/326865-guns...revolution

Reply
#4
Kornee Offline
(Jun 19, 2022 04:11 PM)C C Wrote: Without a genuinely free press and liberty to engage in public activism slash criticism, citizens can't place pressure on an authoritarian government; and an unarmed population has no means to overthrow it. Elections obviously don't serve the task when there's a one-party system, military junta, solid oligarchy, dictatorship, etc -- including superficial, corrupt democracies with perpetually rigged elections. 

The successful communist revolutions of the 20th century had weapon-equipped crusaders (i.e., Tsarist Russia did not take guns away from citizens, only restricted their use for "fun"). In contrast, the "peaceful" Marxist insurrections in various countries failed because the unarmed revolutionaries were easily crushed by the "capitalist" regimes.

Once in power, the communist rulers stripped the proles of arms, so the same could not be done to them at a future date. That's why Chinese citizens are also an impotent factor in deciding or readily changing anything about their government. The video clip here provides a melodramatic emphasis on that fact: China and traditional leftism triumph over Muslim "radicals"

"The Bolshevik Revolution put an end to the free circulation of guns among the general public. The leaders of the uprising knew only too well what the masses were capable of, especially if armed up to the teeth, and moved to monopolize gun ownership. In 1918 the Bolsheviks initiated a large scale confiscation of civilian firearms, outlawing their possession and threatening up to 10 years in prison for concealing a gun.

[...] It was only a matter of time before Russia became an almost totally gun-free nation. Some people believed Russians would regain their right to own guns after the collapse of the Soviet Union but despite firearms becoming available on the black market during the 90s, the new government did not risk liberalizing the gun market.
" https://www.rbth.com/history/326865-guns...revolution

Indeed. Now consider what might be an actual long term aim of the likes of Chucky Schumer and Dianne Feinstein with their incessant calls for 'serious gun control' in the US of A. [I personally don't own or like guns - but that's not the issue here.]
Funny thing though. Never a word of disapproval from either for fellow armed-to-the-teeth Tribalists over there in the so-called holy land.
Snipers specifically trained to shoot out the private parts of Palestinian kids is justified self-defense as far as those two US gun control champions are concerned.

Some suspect a certain sneakiness. A certain level of double standards applies. Sorry - can't help digressing at times.
Reply
#5
C C Offline
(Jun 19, 2022 04:31 PM)Kornee Wrote: [...] Now consider what might be an actual long term aim of the likes of Chucky Schumer and Dianne Feinstein with their incessant calls for 'serious gun control' in the US of A. [I personally don't own or like guns - but that's not the issue here.]

Funny thing though. Never a word of disapproval from either for fellow armed-to-the-teeth Tribalists over there in the so-called holy land.

Snipers specifically trained to shoot out the private parts of Palestinian kids is justified self-defense as far as those two US gun control champions are concerned.

Some suspect a certain sneakiness. A certain level of double standards applies. Sorry - can't help digressing at times.

But "southpaw" Jewish politicians, scholars, journalists, and entertainment industry moguls are incrementally losing their pro-Israel hold on the Leftangelical community. While rebellion within the actor elite may have begun with Vanessa Redgrave at the Academy Awards in 1978, I've encountered retrospective tidbits of other OLD celebrity activists who went rogue over the decades (they're just not easy to find again or exhume as that blazing example).

Since the start of the 2010s (if not also the 21st century as a whole) the switch has spiked in earnest with "young Hollywood", the UK's Labour Party, support for BDS from Democratic Socialists and Muslim legislators like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, etc. 

Despite that mutiny (beyond just the USA), it's difficult to imagine the Democratic Party ever losing its Jewish backbone (of the "southpaw" orientation). Not that Marx truly invented the exploitation of social justice (the roots for that arguably go back to affluent 18th-century French philosophers, with Karl just being a fan of this and that).

But due to the historical persecution of Jews, it's no surprise that this population group would defensively be among the chief architects of the later versions of French-inspired social revolution apparatus (including the New Left expansion of classic systemic-oppression theory to "new" varieties of victimhood), as well as becoming key promoters of such. [Or was the "expansion" more like "refinement" of what was already subsumed by the category? Either way...]

- - -  footnote - - -

[1] Hollywood Reflects Shifting Views on Israel-Palestine Conflict: Since its inception, the entertainment industry in Hollywood has been heavily influenced by Jewish and pro-Israel individuals, but now this is changing. Hollywood, the heart of the world’s entertainment industry, has become a prime location for the political showdown between Israel and Palestine. This showdown manifests itself in celebrity and activist social media statements, boycott and divestment campaigns, and politically motivated TV and film productions.

Hollywood, social media are transforming the Palestinian issue: The entertainment world has traditionally been more progressive and outspoken on issues of human rights and justice than other parts of society and the issue of Palestine has been no exception. In response, those advocating maximalist and right-wing Israeli policies toward the Palestinians have always dismissed the outspokenness of the entertainment world as that of naive and lily-white liberals, self-hating Jews, or both.

Recently, however, with the maturing of millennials into adulthood and the proliferation of social media, the support of many entertainers for the cause of Palestinian justice has found a new platform and a wider, receptive audience among young American adults, including among young American Jews.
Reply
#6
RainbowUnicorn Offline
(Jun 19, 2022 01:41 PM)confused2 Wrote: Think Putin.
I don't know enough to answer the question myself.
Defeat from within would result in wars that fizzle out. America v. Vietnam might be a good example but I suspect Putin is better at using nationalism than a more western democracy.

in a time before the internet i would agree with you that putin would be able to control the narrative
but he cant inspite of his best efforts to block it all from ordinary russians.

ordinary russians know putin is losing because he is blocking things that previously were not blocked.

if putin was not losing he would not be blocking things
same goes for china

what putin needs is the will of the russian male youth to join his army
and i dont think he had that to begin with.
the storys coming out of captured russian soldiers is they were lied to en mass about getting money and not having to serve in a war
and their commanders are hopeless
the old guard generals have been killed on the battlefield and 20 year olds are commanding units like tribal grave robbers.

the more pertinent question is
"how long can putin keep the wheels on the buss"
all its wheels are wobbling and they have replaced a few wheels with spares that dont fit and dont work properly.
the faster it goes the bigger the crash

so everything has slowed down

bomb everything flat, scorch the earth, then occupy the no-mans-land with new recruits

that is their strategy
it only works when they can out range the Ukrainian guns

as soon as Ukraine gets long range artillery to its defensive-offensive positions
they will crush russias artillery and russia will be left only with its air force.

and an air force cant occupy territory and the air force will get sloppy and make mistakes
and stingers will be sitting around waiting for those mistakes that will happen

soo... what will putin do when he realises the people are against him

if he wants the country to succeed he will withdraw
if he has completely lost his mind he will keep on attacking

the race is on for him to complete his invasion before he loses the last of the russian peoples will to fight a useless war that is not giving them anything except dead young men, destroying their future and sanctions turning their society into the dark ages.

as the russian youth see their high tech future turned into a communist cold war low tech tribal like reality, they will eventually revolt or leave the country

and putin will be busing old people from retirement homes to the front lines to be cannon fodder to keep up the stale mate.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)