“Putin compares himself to Peter the Great in quest to take back Russian lands” – TTG

Vladimir Putin has compared himself to the 18th-century Russian tsar Peter the Great, drawing a parallel between what he portrayed as their twin historic quests to win back Russian lands. “Peter the Great waged the great northern war for 21 years. It would seem that he was at war with Sweden, he took something from them. He did not take anything from them, he returned [what was Russia’s],” the Russian president said on Thursday after a visiting an exhibition dedicated to the tsar.

After months of denials that Russia is driven by imperial ambitions in Ukraine, Putin appeared to embrace that mission, comparing Peter’s campaign with Russia’s current military actions. “Apparently, it is also our lot to return [what is Russia’s] and strengthen [the country]. And if we proceed from the fact that these basic values form the basis of our existence, we will certainly succeed in solving the tasks that we face.”

Putin, now in his 23rd year in power, has repeatedly sought to justify Russia’s actions in Ukraine, where his forces have devastated cities, killed thousands and forced millions of people to flee, by propounding a view of history that asserts Ukraine has no real national identity or tradition of statehood.

Critics said Putin’s remarks proved that his complaints about historical injustice, eastward Nato expansion, and other grievances with the west were all a facade for a traditional war of conquest.


Comment: Seems pretty clear to me. Russia is Russia and has been for centuries. We should expect no more and no less. Communism was a mere interlude, a deadly flirtation on the path to an empire of all the Russias. I think Putin sees that.

BTW, Putin doesn’t look like he’s near death in that video. Looks and sounds fairly healthy for his age to me.


This entry was posted in Russia, TTG. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to “Putin compares himself to Peter the Great in quest to take back Russian lands” – TTG

  1. plantman says:

    You really need to go back and watch Putin in Munich so you can get a grip on what is really going on. This “expansionist” nonsense is a public relations scam no different than the Russiagate hoax or the saintly January 6th showtrial.

    Putin has made hundreds of attempts to smooth things over with Washington but has always been brushed aside as inconsequential. Finally, after 3 massive waves of NATO expansion and repeated warnings that he would not allow a hostile army and its missiles on his border, he acted. In truth, he did nothing different than any red blooded American president would have done in the same situation.

    I have no idea why you are trying to sell the Biden version of events, but its alot of baloney if you ask me.

    • TTG says:


      It’s Putin’s words of only a few days ago.

    • Bill Roche says:

      PM; since Peter and Catherine Russia has been about this “expansionist nonsense”. When the SU fell every satellite nation on Russia’s western borders declared independence. When the cats away the mice will play, and they d/n bemoan the end of their reliance on the “Great Russians”. They turned whatever weapons they had east. What did they fear from “mother”? As soon as they could they tucked inside NATO’s protection. Why do they fear Russia? Putin just reminded them. There were two terrible ideas in ’91. One, Bush the stupid, decided to punish, not befriend Russia. The other was Russia deciding to continue to threaten her Slavic neighbors not befriend them. Alas, these can’t be undone. Now “back to the future w/Vlady”. He wants 1914 again.

      • Steve says:


        “He wants 1914 again.”

        Someone certainly does but I doubt it’s Putin or anyone else in Europe.

        Meanwhile the culprits sleep safely in their beds in the DC swamp while sending weapons to the Ukrainians to do the proxy dying. How noble an enterprise is that?

        • Bill Roche says:

          Steve you offer an interesting point. If that rascally Putin d/n invade Ukraine all those culprits in the D.C. swamp would have been foiled. Too bad no one explained this to Putin b/f he ordered his legions west.

          • Steve says:


            This question has been asked here on numerous occasions but has never received a reply: given the events in Donbas from Feb 16 to 23 what alternatives were the Russians left with?

      • different clue says:

        My memory may be way wrong, but I thought it was Clinton the Evil , not “Bush the stupid” who decided to punish Russia. It was President Jeffrey Epsteins friend who decided to force NATO eastward. ( I believe the Clintonoids even studiously ignored the RussiaGov’s earnest request to join NATO its own self, during that short window of time when the RussiaGov wanted to join the West and thought the West wanted it to join). It was Clinton who unleashed Chubais and Gaidar and the Harvard Boys on a near-prostrate Russia to piratise every profitizable public asset so that if the Communists under Zyuganov won the election against Yeltsin, that they would have no State Public property or assets of any kind left to do any revival of communism with. But then neither would any other Russian of any kind.

        Whereas ” Bush the stupid” re-affirmed Reagan’s promise to not extend NATO eastward against Russia. ” Bush the stupid” went so far as to make a speech imploring Ukraine to not vote for Independence from Russia in a national referendum. Good advice or bad advice, it was certainly not designed to “punish Russia”.

        Or am I wrong? . . . as Billo Reilly sometimes asks.

        • Bill Roche says:

          At the fall of the wall Bush announced it was “now time for a new world order”. Huh? New world wha?? Just what did he mean by a new order? Whose order?
          Having lived throughout the cold war I hoped Bush would have said it is now time to begin genuine friendship w/Russia; and do so! He did not. He had a chance to begin a “new world order” but did not take it. Clinton followed suit. As to Ukraine, Bush advocated they they remain Russian lap dogs; little Ukies, completely forgetting America’s own wish for independence. I gave the Bushs’ 4 votes. I wonder now which was dumber. As to O’Reilly, he is a pretty good writer if you like your history w/o reflection. I’d read him again .

          • different clue says:

            When I heard “New World Order” I assumed and still believe that Bush meant Forced Free Trade Everywhere and teveryone-a-serf on the New Corporate Globalonial Plantation. “New World Order” was Bush-speak for what Klaus Schwab calls the WEF Great Reset.

            And in pursuit of that vision, Bush the Elder pursued and continued the Reagan-Salinas de Gortari-Mulroney negotiations for NAFTA and also work on the WTO. He couldn’t get them through a Democrat majority House of Reps, but Clinton the Great Evil Doublecrosser could, after getting elected by pretending to oppose the NAFTA-as-negotiated.
            Which he then totally supported. And he connived to get just enough Democrat Reps to join the Republicans to pass NAFTA, as well as US membership in WTO, as well as MFN status for China, as well as securing China’s membership in WTO.

            “Only Nixon could go to China” and only Clinton
            could get Free Trade passed. That great betrayal turned the House Democrat majority into a minority which has stayed mainly permanent with a few very short passing Majority Dem interludes.

            I do believe that the ReaganBush promise to not push NATO eastward was the first step towards a possibility of friendship with a Russia seeking Euro-Westernization for real. Clinton helped destroy that by pushing NATO eastward to Russia’s borders, as well as working to destroy Russia’s economy with the targeted privatization burndown. A lot of that drive came from Zeebiggynew Brzezinski who was pursuing his own family’s ancient grudge for the loss of its Zlachta-based lands and privileges in Galicia.
            And some of it was suction-eastward by East Europeans, in particular the sainted Vaclav Havel who apparently lobbied Clinton on pushing NATO eastward. When someone reminded me of this , it made me think more than ever that NATO preservation and then expansion should be viewed at least in part as a Euro-British conspiracy against America.

        • Bill Roche says:

          So Brzeinski was a Pole from Halycnia. I guess his family were south west Poles. Maybe you are right about his “family’s rights” in Galycnia. I distrusted him. I found your comments interesting BUT, once again there is little consideration for real independence for the western Slavs. You give them passing recognition but they also “ought” have had a say in their future. They’re not Russian bargaining chips. This is what many westerners do not understand (perhaps you too?). Finns to Bulgars are not “Mother Russias” children. NATO could never make western Slavs join. Russia cajoled, begged, and threatened them to stay at her heels but they, they, ran to NATO. Why?

  2. Lesly says:

    I thank him for the honesty.

    “Apparently, it is also our lot to return [what is Russia’s] and strengthen [the country]. And if we proceed from the fact that these basic values form the basis of our existence, we will certainly succeed in solving the tasks that we face.”

    In light of the crap gear Russians have been equipped with her elites need to move the border if they want to keep siphoning real wealth and innovation generated by the plebs.

  3. plantman says:

    Look, the Guardian has been one of the most ferocious critics of Putin. You can’t expect objectivity from that leftwing rag. Besides, I find Putin’s comments pretty opaque and open to interpretation. What is NOT opaque is what Putin has stated repeatedly and publicly that he is not looking to rebuild the Russia empire. For example, here’s an excerpt from a piece at RT:

    Russian President Vladimir Putin has dismissed the accusation that he is plotting to restore his country to the borders of the Russian Empire, insisting that Moscow recognizes the independence of post-Soviet states.

    In an exchange held with his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilham Aliyev on Tuesday, Putin assured that, while he had anticipated Western backlash over his decision to formally recognize the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, the return of the Russian Empire was not on the cards.

    “I want to say right away: we see and foresaw speculation on this topic that Russia is going to restore the empire within the same imperial borders. This is absolutely not true,” the Russian president explained to Aliyev.”

    Putin’s supposed “imperial ambitions” is pure fluff. The man simply doesn’t want washington’s missiles parked on his border.

    Would you??

    • TTG says:


      In this case, the Guardian is not editorializing. It is reporting and translating what Putin said. Putin has said a lot of things including restoring what he believes is rightfully Russian. And he repeatedly asserted that Ukrainians don’t exist and the land they occupy belongs to Russia. If he was just concerned about US missiles on his border, he’s be primarily concerned about the Baltics.

      • jld says:

        Whatever Russia (NOT just Putin) intend to do in their near-abroad can you explain why it is your duty as an American to oppose it?

      • Steve says:


        The Guardian is just “reporting”?

        Ever since Rusbridger left the editor’s chair the newspaper has been rabid in its Russia (Putin) narrative. In particular Luke Harding has been seeking his revenge for being expelled (well, politely asked to bugger off and not come back) for his scribblings about a Mafia state under Putin.

        Had he arrived there a few years earlier he would have really discovered the Mafia state sheltered by Yeltsin. But he didn’t and his reporting from there – mostly listening to disenchanted westward looking Liberals – lacked even some cursory knowledge of the state of Russia’s vast hinterland.

        Here he is being taken apart by Aaron Maté on “Russiagate”. We all now know how that turned out:) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ikf1uZli4g

  4. Bill Roche says:

    I agree re Putin’s health. Wishful thinking in the west for his demise. I am not smart yet somehow I knew in the summer of ’91 that this UKR/RUS War was going to happen. B/F former soviet satellites opted to announce their independence and later ask for NATO membership, b/f the neocons helped rid Ukraine of their Russian loving President, b/f all the talk of “avenues of invasion” from west to east and vice versa b/c popular and b/f the talk of LNG and oil pipelines were considered, I knew this would happen. I should bet on the “ponies”; can Saratoga be far away? Our State Dept. d/n know this. How did I know this? B/C I know Russian mentality. Mother Russia, the hegemon of all Slavs, Balts, Finns and Swedes must be restored. The collapse of the S.U. wasn’t terrible b/c of communism but b/c it was the collapse of the Russian Empire. This has remained in the Russian mind since 1991. People refuse to see this. Whatever the fate of Ukraine, this war is a big wake up for Russia’s western neighbors. Are they willing to rtn to 1914. Will they accept Russian tanks in Buda-Pest, Prague, or Warsaw? In 2022 will the Russian population accept blood sacrifice for empire if neighboring states tell the Russians to F-off? Will western European NATO members think the independence of Lithuania, Hungary and Bulgaria are worth war w/i Russia? These were the obvious questions 30 years ago. Are the lights on at “Foggy Bottom”.

    • Barbara Ann says:

      Bill Roche

      “In 2022 will the Russian population accept blood sacrifice for empire if neighboring states tell the Russians to F-off?”. Not for empire, but perhaps for a civilizational war. This is what Putin describes in the Guardian’s short excerpt here and he has consistently spoken of the SMO being part of the much wider existential war Russia is being forced to wage against a degenerate West hell bent on destroying her. We can choose to think what we like about such talk, but the fact is Putin’s domestic audience seem heavily bought in to this narrative. His relaxed body language here and elsewhere speak volumes about his state of mind too IMO.

  5. plantman says:

    Let’s stop beating around the bush…

    You and I are on opposite sides about the war in Ukraine but there might be something more important that we actually agree about.

    Here it is: My only interest in this deal is America. What’s good for America, that’s what I care about. And, I think, you probably feel the same way. (Am I right?)

    Where we differ, is how to go about promoting a result that is good for our own country. America.

    You think we should support the “brave Ukrainians” and help them push Putin out of their country. I understand that and I respect that.

    But from my angle, we are pursuing a policy to “weaken” Russia by dragging it to a protracted quagmire that drains its resources and leads to regime change. Unfortunately, the idiots who drafted this plan didn’t see how the US would be hurt by it. So far, Putin is raking in the dough, while inflation soars across the west, supply disruptions abound, famine is expected this winter, and the economy is headed for the toilet. I think Kissinger saw all this which is why he put his neck on the chopping block and said “Stop. Now” Before really bad things happen to America”!

    And that’s where we disagree. Because I think we are about to face unbelievable blowback from this “bridge too far”.

    Bottom line: This war is going to crush us economically and trigger geopolitical changes that will damage America’s future immeasurably. We need to acknowledge our mistake and cut a deal.

    • TTG says:


      We do agree on and fear for some of the same things. I doubt we would be trying to weaken Russia, if she did not invade Ukraine. We can easily have both a cooperative and competitive relationship with a strong and prosperous Russia. Eastern Europe could probably do the same if Russia was content behind her own borders. I truly though that would happen when the USSR collapsed. I was in Germany at the time recruiting and running a stable of East European and Russian agents. There was great apprehension, but also great hope for the future.

      This war is triggering geopolitical and economic changes. NATO has risen from the dead. Central Asian nations are looking more towards China and China is encouraging that move. Russia, by necessity, will become more self-sufficient. We’re in for some hard time as economic alliances and supply chains realign. But having to pay through the nose to fill up the tank while still driving off on our family vacations is hardly the definition of economic misery. Russia is in for a world of pain. She’ll survive, but she’ll become even more envious of the West as she goes through a slow motion revolution of her own doing.

      • Barbara Ann says:


        “I doubt we would be trying to weaken Russia, if she did not invade Ukraine”

        You can’t possibly believe that surely? Putin had the temerity to rebuild Russia after Gorbachev & Yeltsin very nearly destroyed the country by opening it up to rapacious neoliberalism. The neocons have been out to weaken/destroy Russia ever since – what else was NATO eastward expansion all about? What territorial adventurism on the part of Russia justified this policy?

        There is a whole industry dedicated to zero sum game attempts to diminish Russia – I give you the RAND Corp’s latest offering not so subtly entitled; Overextending and Unbalancing Russia. All that has happened since February 24th is this project has changed into high gear.

        Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine, but the delenda est mindset among Russiaphobes predates the SMO by years if not decades.

        • TTG says:

          Barbara Ann,

          What you call NATO eastward expansion was, in reality, former Soviet vassal states flocking westward. The movement was driven largely by old fears and experience with Moscow, but it was driven by the new members, not by the old NATO members. Sure there are those in the West who never trusted a Moscow commie, no matter what they call themselves now. That RAND study is proof of that. But Moscow’s crowing about their wonder weapons capable of destroying Western capitals at will sure didn’t help their cause.

          • Steve says:


            For sure the former Soviet states were joining NATO based on their paranoia but now look where they’ve found themselves. When NATO backs down from this fight – as they are already doing – and they face an eastern axis of power they’ll be wondering what on earth were this cold war era politicians thinking.

        • Fred says:

          Barbara Ann,

          It is ancestral hatred. It was a major reason the founders warned their posterity against foreign entanglements.

        • Bill Roche says:

          BA it takes two to tango. NATO’s advance east could not have happened if Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Bulgars, Romanians, and Hungarians had not said yes, pls take us in b/c we fear Russia. Why can’t other Slavic nations (and now Finland and Sweden) just “cuddle up” to their friendly eastern neighbor. What does “rebuild Russia” mean? Other Slavs think it means subordination to Russia. The history of Russia, from Peter to Lenin, has not changed, it is about empire. In ’45, Stalin d/n leave eastern Europe b/c he wanted a buffer, he wanted to keep Russia’s Empire. Russian need for a buffer from the west conveniently forgets that Napoleon’s invasion happened 200 years ago!! One hundred years later Russia invaded Germany, Finland (twice), invaded Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and again threatened Poland again. Who needs a buffer from whom? Two to Tango. NATO’s advance happened w/Slavic embrace.

  6. James says:


    With respect – Russia is Russia and Britain is Britain. Moscow feels like the seat of an empire and so does Trafalgar square.

  7. Deap says:

    1. Russia did not invade France. Napoleon did.
    2. Russia did not invade Germany. Hitler did.

    • Bill Roche says:

      Deap ur rite,
      France invaded Russia in 1813. They lost, badly.
      Russia invaded Germany in 1915. They lost, badly.
      Russia invaded Finland in 1920. They beat up the Finns badly.
      Russia invaded Poland in 1939. They beat up the Poles badly.
      Russia invaded Finland again in 39-40. Ultimately they beat the Finns, again.
      Russia sent troops and tanks to Hungary in 1954. Just 14 yrs later
      Russia sent troops and tanks to Czechoslovakia in ’68. Just 14 more yrs later.
      Russia threatened to do the same to Poland in 1985.
      In the words of Charlie Brown “Why’s everybody always pickin on me?”

      • different clue says:

        Your last five examples are misattributed to “Russia”. They were actually committed or threatened by the Communist USSR which was a very different country under different ideology than the current Russian Federation.

        • Bill Roche says:

          I see. So from 1918 till 1991 Russia was not really Russia.

          • different clue says:

            No, it wasn’t. It was subsumed in a much larger USSR and the USSR’s goals were ideology-driven.

            Russia was in many ways taxed and exploited to subsidise the non-Russia republics in order to keep them relatively happy campers. The Central Asiastan people were tolerated in keeping their mosques and such as long as they behaved themselves, whereas the Russian Orthodox Church was savagely suppressed and persecuted with the intention of exterminating it from existence until Stalin under the extreme duress of Germanazi invasion found its existence had to be tolerated along with just enough Mother Russianism to allow Russians to feel they were fighting for themselves and country as against fighting for communism.

            Troops and tanks to Hungary and Czechoslovakia and threats of such into Poland were to protect Communism, not to enhance Russia.

  8. Fourth and Long says:

    A handsome frisky healthy hound dog, affectionately named Emperor, yes he seemed that way to us. He trotted to a stop at the long table, sat down, and looked over the menu. His tail was motionless and out of sight. His eyes were clear, his ears alert.

    A waiter said: “Your excellency, will you be having a bite to eat? Perhaps a district or two … or do you fancy a province? Haha, so sorry, Emperor old fellow, bit cheeky of me, just having a bit of fun because of your, ah, name, tee hee.”

    Emperor looked up at the sign on the wall, which read: Here ate Peter the Great, and it was from this plate.

    Then he looked over the menu again.

    “Rabbit, please, killed by gunshot.”

    And that’s what Emperor, the healthy looking old dog, had for dinner. That day.

  9. Lars says:

    I just talked to a friend in Sweden, who had just spent time with people from Lithuania, who have contact with people in Russia and what was conveyed is that middle class Russians are rather upset to be considered new Nazis, to not be able to travel, or buy things they had gotten used to have. These people also think Putin has about 3 months to get out of this mess, or the discontent will substantially increase. I realize this is just a small snapshot, but it jibes with other info I have seen.

    • joe90 says:

      Russians would be furious to be called Nazis, not “rather upset”. But this war will be over for all intent by July.

    • Fred says:


      I don’t have European contacts with friends in Russia; however, I had diner tonight at my favorite burger joint. Nobody was talking about Ukraine, Putin or J6 hearings. They were all talking about food prices and gas prices and inflation. That’s the two families with kids behind me, the retirees across from me and the trio of mid-30s guys who run their own business at the next table over. I would say Biden’s handlers have about 3 1/2 months to ram through all their remaining ‘change you can believe in’ ideas left over from when they worked for Barack, because if there’s an actual fair election it will be a landslide against the incumbents in office. Fifty plus of them have already announced retirements:

  10. leith says:

    I have to agree 100% with Lesly’s comment above. Putin and his cohorts have milked Russians and Russian resources almost dry. So now they want to steal the industrial and agricultural assets of Ukraine and her natural resources. Black Sea oil was why he took Crimea eight years ago. Coal and heavy industry in the Donbas is why he sponsored the LNR/DNR puppet states. The Yuzivska gas field is why he now wants all of the Donbas. As Lesly said Putin and his clique need “to keep siphoning real wealth and innovation generated by the plebs”.

    Paraphrasing my father: Putin would not even be a pimple on Peter the Great’s arse.

    Strelkov mocks Putin openly, referring to him as Винни Пух (that translates to Winnie the Pooh in English).

    • Jovan P says:

      If Ukraine were to accept a non Nato status, there would have been no spec op/ war. Most things would stay the same as pre 24 February, Zelensky would have governed for the years to come, Azov thugs would have grown stronger… The only thing that would have been stopped was an all out attack of the Ukrainians on Donbass (then Russia would interfere). The mentioned gas field would remain in the hands of some Ukrainian oligarch, and the west deep state would have more years to deliver more and more weapons to the Ukrainian army.

      • leith says:

        Jovan – Why blame the victim?

        Putin knew that NATO was not going to grant Ukraine membership. NATO does not allow membership in cases where part of a nation’s land is occupied by Putin’s troops. That was the same reason Moldova and Georgia were not going to get in, because of Putin’s puppet states of Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia.

        Ukraine may get in with NATO now because of Putin’s invasion. Perhaps she won’t be a certified partner with all 30 NATO nations. But informally with side security deals with some of those members – similar to the recent UK-Sweden-Finland tripartite security declaration.

        Plus as you know Putin has been interfering in the Donbas for the last eight years, supporting attacks by his LNR/DNR puppets against Ukraine. All the while blaming those attacks on the victims. It’s called ‘projection’. He does the projection thing with the Nazi tag also, while it is his own thugs from the FSB, Wagner Group, Kadyrovtsy, and some of the LNR/DNR militias (for example the Prizrak Brigade and Sparta Battalion) that are the true followers of fascist ideology.

        • borko says:


          Ukraine does not have to be in NATO to be a military threat to the Russians. Cuba was not a member of the Warsaw pact in 1962.

          The way things are developing in Ukraine, it seems increasingly likely that Russia will remove a significant portion of the country from Kiev’s control.

          Whatever is left will still be subjected to Russian attacks if they detect a significant offensive military capability.

          The situation reminds me a bit of Syria. Large parts of the country have been expropriated by Turkey, US and Israel, with Israel doing regular attacks on anything they deem threatening.

          • leith says:

            Borko – Thanks for your forecast. I personally hope you are wrong.

            It is unfortunate that Putin will devastate Russia to make your predictions become true.

            If (big if) it happens it’s too bad Putin won’t be around to see the 50 years (or 100 or 200 years ) of guerrilla warfare by his so-called Little Russians against his successor regime. The Ukrainians ain’t gonna submit to being slaves. Not ever.

  11. borko says:

    One of Ukraine’s SBU (Ukrainian KGB variant) hot shots, Brigadier general Andriy Naumov has been arrested today in Serbia.
    Apparently he fled the country hours before the invasion and took a few souvenirs with him.
    He had in his posession 600 000 euros, 120 000 dollars and some emeralds.
    Ironically, he lead the agency’s internal security department, which is responsible for preventing corruption among the SBU’s ranks.
    He previously worked for 12 years at the Prosecutor General’s Office.
    Corruption runs deep in that country.

    • Deap says:

      Did he have Hunter Biden’s email address on him? Or is that who got his first post-arrest phone call.

      • borko says:

        I’m sure he has plenty of dirt on many high ranking people.
        Maybe we’ll find out. Serbia has him, so maybe some of the information finds it’s way into Russian hands.

    • Bill Roche says:

      Nat’l guilt by association Mr Borko? I’m glad that such corruption has never reached the capitol at Washington DC or my state of New York. And your capitol Mr Borko is as pure as driven snow?

  12. Christian J. Chuba says:

    Then let’s set a good example and give a portion of the south west back to Mexico, or at least hold a vote on it.

    Peter the Great expanded Russia from Moscow to the Pacific. Pity. If he never existed, that territory could have been part of our westward expansion. We should at least take back Wrangel Island to stop the Chinese NW sea route to Europe.

    • Bill Roche says:

      Given the SW drought and the “death” of Lake Mead and Hoover electricity I wonder if the Mexicans would want much of the southwest rtnd. Imagine New Mexico w/o water, air conditioning, and gov’t mandated electric cars.

    • Deap says:

      You mean Mexico would have to pay to educate their own citizens who now live in this newly annexed territory and pay all their social Services costs?

      California at last count loses $23 billion dollars net every year on illegals who are residing in this chunk of ersatz Nuevo Mexico. They pay $3 billion in various local taxes while taking out $26 billion in “free” goods and services from California tax payers.

      Your suggestion may make good financial sense. Let’s run the numbers but I think you have winning suggestion. Possession is nine points of the law, so they by all measures do in fact own this territory, but we are stuck with their bills. And that is just not fair.

  13. Jovan P says:

    If I were to guess who formulated the ,,know your enemy” principle, I’d bet on Sun Tzu. Although this principle is probably old as humans, when I think about it, for some reason I think of the US Army, WWII and the series of films about Germany and Japan (today found on Periscopefilm).

    Let’s hope the US army and intelligence services still have such excellent experts capable of deeply understanding the enemy. If I were some US decision maker and were offered an explanation that the Russians entered Ukraine because they wanted to restore the Russian empire, I wouldn’t know how to react.

  14. Mark Logan says:

    The critics say this proves the war is a facade for a war of conquest but that’s a stretch. There is no reason the rational isn’t as Putin describes it. It’s entirely plausible. He harbors a strong sense of entitlement to the eastern sections which were added to Ukraine as administrative simplifications in the Soviet era. Nearly all fading empires fight to cling on to what they can. Why not take Putin’s words as an indicator of his thinking? It doesn’t serve as an excuse for the war, so why the need to contradict it?

    The urge to vilify in war is very strong. There must be white hats and black hats!

    Christian, check out the map of Russia’s eastern expansion. A heck of a lot of it happened prior to Peter TG. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_Russia_(1500%E2%80%931800)#/media/File:Territorial_Expansion_of_Russia.svg

    If Putin had cited Ivan TT as his model, I would be much more frightened.

  15. Lars says:

    Peter the Great defeated Sweden because after decades of warfare, Sweden was exhausted. Thus, one of Karl XII’s soldiers put a bullet (according to legend, a uniform button) in his head and killed him. This may be a cautionary tale for Putin.

Comments are closed.