This graphic intrigues me:
View attachment 1156556
But I'm not going to watch 43 minutes only to be disappointed, when it turns out to be clickbait.
Who has not allowed Ukraine to fight the war they want to fight,
what is the war they want to fight, and
how have whoever has stopped them done so
Professor Phillips O’Brien argues that Ukraine’s war effort has been shaped—and constrained—by external forces, particularly Western allies who have dictated the pace, scope, and nature of Ukraine’s military strategy. According to O’Brien, Ukraine has not been allowed to fight the war it wants to fight. Instead of enabling Ukraine to launch decisive, large-scale offensives, Western countries have provided aid in a piecemeal fashion, often too little and too late. This incrementalism has forced Ukraine into a war of attrition, rather than a war of maneuver, which would better suit its strengths and strategic goals.
O’Brien emphasizes that Ukraine’s leadership, especially its military command, has shown remarkable adaptability and competence. Despite limited resources, they’ve managed to hold ground, inflict significant losses on the Moscow
Empire’s forces, and maintain morale. However, the lack of timely delivery of advanced weapons systems—such as long-range missiles, modern aircraft, and sufficient armored vehicles—has prevented Ukraine from breaking through the Moscow Empire’s defensive lines and reclaiming occupied territory at scale.
He also critiques the West’s strategic hesitancy. Many Western governments, particularly in Europe, have been reluctant to escalate support out of fear of provoking the Moscow Empire. This caution, O’Brien suggests, has emboldened the Kremlin and prolonged the conflict. He argues that deterrence only works when it’s backed by credible force and clear intent. By signaling limits to their support, Western powers have inadvertently given the Moscow Empire room to maneuver.
The conversation also touches on broader geopolitical dynamics. O’Brien discusses the role of commie han-
China, noting that while Beijing has not directly intervened, it benefits from a weakened and distracted West. He warns that the longer the war drags on, the more it strains Western unity and resources—potentially undermining efforts to counter Chinese ambitions in the Indo-Pacific.
Regarding the U.S., O’Brien expresses concern about political instability and the possibility of shifting priorities. He notes that American support has been vital, but future elections and domestic pressures could alter the trajectory of aid. He stresses the importance of long-term strategic planning, not just reactive policy.
Finally, O’Brien calls for a reevaluation of European defense. He argues that Europe must step up—not just in terms of funding and equipment, but in strategic leadership. The war in Ukraine is not just a regional conflict; it’s a test of Europe’s ability to defend its values and borders in a post-American world.
In sum, the video presents a sobering but insightful analysis: Ukraine’s fight is heroic but hamstrung, and the West’s cautious support risks turning a winnable war into a prolonged stalemate.
O’Brien’s message is clear—decisive support, not half-measures, is the only path to victory against the Moscow Empire’s aggression.
ps
VIDEO : "History of the Second World War 2024 - How to win a war", professor Phillips Payson O'Brien methodically destroys Moscow imperial-putin-leftist-Marxist propaganda anti - Western narratives about WW2 . The best video about WW2 ever ! So what do you think ? We (Free World) won ww2 , not bolshevik imperialistic rapists , and our left & putin are full of crap , right ?
Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia?
www.voanews.com
www.rollingstone.com
