It’s time to revisit a topic which many found objectionable back when I addressed it in August 2022: How did the West get it so wrong on Russia?

The answer I offered then remains valid today: incompetence shaped by Russophobia.

Just a reminder that Anne Applebaum has blood on her hands…

Seven psychological manipulations Biden used to pressure Congress to pass a new Ukraine aid package

Have you ever heard the manipulative "if we don’t protect Ukraine, we can be next" argument when Western leaders try to justify their poor policy? All such manipulations have been outdone by Joe Biden’s latest urgent message to Congress: the address literally consisted of propaganda techniques.

Nika, our AI anchor, is sure that all of these psychological tricks have long been known. Get ready to find out what are they, and how to counter these tactics.

Subscribe to @geopolitics_live

Of interest.

Opinion by Lt.Col. Oleg Shalandin:

I was asked to comment on the Foreign Policy article “The Shortest Path to Victory in Ukraine Is Through Crimea.” You can read the article here
The general tone of the article suggests that the collective West is not abandoning attempts to continue the conflict, which is mistakenly considered to be a conflict between Russia and Ukraine. No, this is a conflict on a global scale, localized in a very specific territory. And they [the collective West] do not intend to give up the armed struggle, although they are looking for a way out of the impasse of the discrepancy between their desires and their own capabilities.

With the tenacity of a maniac, they talk about the blockade of Crimea. Why do they need Crimea?
The Crimean peninsula is of strategic importance for our defense. Whoever owns Crimea controls the Black Sea. NATO was going to establish a military base in Crimea in 2012-2013 for the same purpose, and the testing of legitimate grounds, even if it would mean they have to include Ukraine in the alliance, began even earlier.

How will this ensure the security of the Ukraine? In no way. Ukraine abandoned its own security, becoming a representative of NATO interests in the post-Soviet space. With of without Crimea - this does not change absolutely a thing in the geopolitical approaches of the West, including their views on the use of Ukraine as an outsource of war.

But I am pleased by the fact that in the West there are voices saying that negotiations are necessary. True, these voices are speaking aloud not from the good will of a desire to end the conflict, but for in need of a break. The West’s confusion between what is desired and reality is very indicative. This means that we are doing everything correctly, that the SMO was calculated correctly, and the approaches to its implementation were correct.

According to my feelings from communicating with foreigners, they have a very favorable attitude towards Russia. True, no one is going to listen to them. But it would be necessary. One of the comments: a prerequisite for joining NATO is to be an idiot.

I believe in the victory of Russian weapons!
The whole world is Russia, and only Kosovo is Serbia!

#source

@Slavyangrad

Likewise:

Q&A by lieutenant colonel Oleg Shalandin part 1 of 2

I have one friend, whose questions are as innumerable, as stars in the Universe. I had the lucky opportunity to pass these questions to Lt.Col. Oleg Shalandin, who was kind enough to provide the answers. Some of the questions may sound a bit naive, but if something like that is asked, than there is a reason for that. Sometimes all of us need a recap.

Here comes Q&A:

Question 1: Can Russia launch a comprehensive nuclear first strike?

Answer.
The use of nuclear weapons by the Russian Federation is determined by the Presidential Decree “On the Fundamentals of State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence.” Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Decree state:
State policy in the field of nuclear deterrence is defensive in nature, aimed at maintaining the potential of nuclear forces at a level sufficient to ensure nuclear deterrence, and guarantees the protection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state, deterring a potential enemy from aggression against the Russian Federation and (or) its allies, and in the event of a military conflict - preventing the escalation of hostilities and their cessation on terms acceptable to the Russian Federation and (or) its allies.
The Russian Federation views nuclear weapons solely as a means of deterrence, the use of which is an extreme and forced measure and makes all necessary efforts to reduce the nuclear threat and prevent the aggravation of interstate relations that could provoke military conflicts, including nuclear ones.
One of the conditions for the use of nuclear weapons is aggression against the Russian Federation using conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened.
Thus, Russia will not launch a comprehensive nuclear strike first, only in response to aggression against it.

Question 2. Why does Russia need an aircraft carrier group?

Answer.
The Russian Navy does not have an aircraft carrier group. We have one ship capable of carrying aircraft (aircraft) for the entire fleet - the Project 1143.5 heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser (TAKR) "Admiral Kuznetsov" of the Northern Fleet of the Russian Navy. However, Kuznetsov does not have launch catapults, which makes it impossible for heavy aircraft to take off, such as carrier-based AWACS aircraft (Russia does not have such aircraft), as well as a small number of carrier-based aircraft - only 26 Su-33. And all this limits the capabilities of combat formation. This ship is designed to support the actions of troops in coastal areas, support the actions of amphibious assault and provide air defense to the naval group. Does the Russian Navy need an aircraft carrier group? This is a matter of discussing views on the conduct of armed warfare at sea.

to be continued

#source

@Slavyangrad

Continued.