The war drags on because the backers won’t admit it failed
The UK is a totalitarian state, always has been until the internet arrived and unravelled this tightly controlled illusion of democracy and freedom of speech in information and narrative space. Recent developments in the United Kingdom highlight a troubling erosion of free speech under the guise of protecting public discourse. A video of former President Donald Trump meeting with Labour leader Keir Starmer reveals a stark contradiction: while Starmer publicly champions free speech, the UK government simultaneously advances legislation, such as the Online Safety Bill, designed to throttle online expression. This crackdown on dissenting voices signals a loss of control over the narrative surrounding critical issues like the Ukraine war and the Gaza conflict, where growing public skepticism challenges official accounts.
(Starmer lying about free speech in UK)
Amid this backdrop, the war in Ukraine suffers from a similar lack of coherent direction, particularly from the United States. Official positions fluctuate with every public statement, and arbitrary deadlines are set without connection to policy, negotiation, or tangible consequences. These announcements bear little relation to any concrete military or diplomatic strategy and instead reflect a broader absence of structured planning. Ultimately, policy decisions are not driven by elected officials but are shaped by opaque interests operating behind the scenes.
The origin of the conflict lies in long-term plans to build Ukraine as a counterweight to Russian power. After the change of government in 2014, military and intelligence infrastructure was expanded with Western backing. The presence of armed networks and foreign agencies near Russia’s borders was treated by Moscow as an unacceptable strategic risk. That led directly to military action, the special military operation (SMO). The response has followed a focused aim, the dismantling of Ukrainian armed capacity, but without a costly occupation or annexation. The objective is to eliminate the threat posed by the military infrastructure and its foreign handlers.
There has been no engagement with the concerns raised by the opposing side. Western officials have relied entirely on threats, economic sanctions, and public messaging. That approach has not changed behaviour or improved conditions. The foreign services involved in Ukraine are not merely advisors as the lamestream media parrot daily. They operate in an embedded and directive role, so their removal is non-negotiable from the Russian position. This demand has remained consistent since the final breakdown of diplomacy in late 2021 and early 2022.
The puppet leadership in Ukraine holds no independent power to alter course. Foreign financial, political, and intelligence structures determine strategy. If Ukrainian officials attempted to exit the war or reach terms, they would be replaced. The political environment allows no deviation, hence the government functions as a channel for the interests of its external backers. These state institutions do not act alone but are part of wider networks that include private finance, lobbying entities, and ideological sponsors.
Public narrative has been shaped by individuals with unresolved financial stakes in Russia. The most prominent voices urging pressure on Moscow include former asset holders who lost access after internal legal reforms, the ones that bet on the wrong horse. Their claims are treated as expert analysis but reflect personal grievance. This influence has distorted public understanding of the war’s origins and the nature of the enemy being confronted.
There has been no shift in Russia’s domestic stability, and the state is strong and not in crisis. Economic life continues, and public support remains high as the country views the war as essential to survival and has accepted long-term mobilisation as necessary. Trade in energy, raw materials, and industrial goods remains active. Buyers such as China, India, and Turkey have not withdrawn. Sanctions have not produced the economic collapse envisages and secondary enforcement measures are not working. They are planning to apply more according to the likes of Lyndsey Graham and Trump himself who seems to be in some form of God complex trance every time he speaks.
Statements that Russia could have been economically dominant without war ignore the broader trend of financial sovereignty. Since the 1990s, Russia has reduced its dependence on Western markets and capital. Energy revenues are not its only support as industrial development, agricultural exports, and regional trade are all functioning. Western plans to force submission through financial tools have completely failed, a total farce to be honest. The belief that isolation would trigger internal crisis has no supporting evidence.
Western armed support is no longer sustainable at current levels. Ammunition and missiles are consumed faster than the western industrial capacity can replace. Defence contractors producing these overlooked, over hyped already proven to be useless on the battlefield cannot meet demand. Patriot systems and other air defence platforms are in short supply and have performed below expectations, dismal cannot even describe the uselessness against Iranian homegrown missiles and drones. During the 12 day war, in the latter stages of engagement, most incoming attacks reached targets without interception. Western reports of interception success are not supported by actual battlefield data. Available evidence shows air defence systems are consistently failing under sustained attack.
Western military leaders responsible for these farcical strategies continue to receive promotions despite repeated failures. There is a notable absence of accountability for unsuccessful outcomes on the battlefield. Career advancement proceeds independently of actual performance in combat situations. This recurring pattern was evident in previous conflicts as well. The repetition of identical mistakes suggests a failure to learn from history. Moreover, the institutions charged with policy formulation have neither adjusted nor corrected their strategic approach.
In Europe, governments are under growing pressure to comply with the unified war position. Resistance has been punished through legal or political means. Candidates who raise objections have been blocked from election. Electoral outcomes that challenge the war narrative are undermined or reversed. This pressure is applied not through open debate but by control over media, law, and finance. Opposition is treated as destabilising and disloyal.In Central and Eastern Europe, responses to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine vary significantly. Hungary has resisted EU sanctions on Russia and blocked budget agreements, prioritizing national interests over EU unity. Serbia maintains neutrality, with widespread anti-government protests reflecting public dissatisfaction amid political unrest. Croatia and Slovenia show limited engagement, with Croatia experiencing a rightward political shift raising minority concerns, while Slovenia focuses on regional stability. Poland has adopted a robust security posture, increasing defense spending to 4.7% of GDP and expanding military training programs. However, there are increasing signs Poland may stop play along with this futile globalist endeavor. Romania’s recent election annulment due to globalist direct interference highlights democratic vulnerabilities where any anti-war sentiment is thwarted by any means necessary. The Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, support sanctions and condemnation of Russia but face internal divisions that may challenge their defensive capabilities. Across the region, political opposition to dominant war narratives is often marginalised through media control and legal mechanisms, limiting open debate and reinforcing established policies.
There is no realistic diplomatic plan or proposal that addresses the underlying issues. There is no willingness to remove the foreign military and intelligence presence from Ukraine. The opposing force has no reason to accept a settlement that leaves those structures in place. The conflict will persist until the existing structures are dismantled. This issue stems from structural factors rather than ideological differences. The position has been communicated repeatedly and remains unchanged.
The ongoing supply of missiles and logistical support from NATO-aligned countries has blurred the boundary of the conflict zone and those involved in the supply chain are now part of the war. As missile systems continue to be deployed from bordering states, the likelihood of military retaliation grows. The longer the conflict is sustained, the higher the chance of escalation beyond the original battlefield. The decision to recruit men over 60 underscores the increasingly desperate situation faced by Ukraine’s military amid sustained casualties and recruitment challenges. Expanding contract-based service to pensioners aims to fill vital non-combat roles, thereby freeing younger, combat-capable soldiers for front-line duties. However, this move also reflects the severe strain on Ukraine’s manpower and highlights the limits of its current mobilization policies, which have faced widespread resistance and social unrest. The inclusion of older men in military service may further intensify public unease and exacerbate tensions within Ukrainian society, already fatigued by the prolonged conflict and conscription pressures. Moreover, the reliance on pensioners and the tightening of conscription rules reveal deeper systemic problems within Ukraine’s armed forces, including high rates of desertion and allegations of corruption. The reported cases of extortion and mistreatment of soldiers by commanders undermine morale and threaten the cohesion of military units. These internal challenges complicate Kyiv’s efforts to sustain its war effort, even as Western support continues to flow. Meanwhile, Russian officials capitalize on these difficulties to portray Ukraine’s mobilisation as a reckless depletion of its population, framing the conflict as one driven by external forces willing to sacrifice Ukraine’s youth. This narrative intensifies the propaganda war, further complicating prospects for a negotiated resolution.
(Sergey Lavrov, Europe has lost the vaccine against Nazism)
The West does not have a single leader of even the caliber of Russian Foreign Minister in there ranks. Sergey Lavrov has emphatically rejected calls for a ceasefire without addressing Russia’s demands, asserting that such an outcome “will not happen.” Speaking at the XI All-Russian Youth Educational Forum “Territory of Meanings,” Lavrov went on to criticise Europe for what he described as a resurgence of hostile forces seeking to undermine Russia, likening the situation to a revival of dangerous ideologies. He lamented the loss of what he termed the “vaccine against Nazism,” signaling Moscow’s deep distrust of Western intentions and framing the Ukraine crisis within a broader ideological and geopolitical struggle.
The West’s strategic miscalculations have been compounded by political leadership marked by overconfidence and misjudgment. Westrrn leaders, such as Trump, demonstrate a dangerous belief in their personal influence, expecting Russia to align after a simple phone call, only to be blindsided by Putin’s decisive actions in Ukraine. Putin’s decisions prioritise Russian interests, not personal alliances, exposing the naivety of those who underestimated him. In reality, Trump and many European leaders act as performers within a larger, global power structure, constrained by forces beyond their control. This hubris has led to fundamental policy failures. The West’s military capacity is stretched thin, stockpiles depleted, and public support fragmented. Political unity is waning, and industrial output struggles to meet operational demands. The ongoing conflict’s escalating costs are tangible and immediate. Without realistic strategy and cohesion, the opportunity for a controlled resolution is rapidly diminishing. The victims of all this debacle are western taxpayers who have been fleeced then stripped of any say, any voice, and can only watch the trainwreck wrecking their once gilded lives from the discomfort of the screens.
Authored By:
If a few more people choose to become paid subscribers, Popular Information could expose more lies, root out more corruption, and call out more hypocrites. So, if you can afford it, please support this work.
buymeacoffee.com/ggtv
Leave a comment